SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Tri) 79

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
Biswajit Palit, J.
The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary, Home Department - Appellant
Versus
Md. Giyas Uddin, S/o Late Abdul Khaleque and ors. - Respondents
Crl.A.No.10 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P., Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ratan Datta, Adv., Mr. Aditya Baidya, Adv., Mr. Suraj Dhanuk, Adv., Ms. Saswati Nag, Adv.

The appellate court's lenient sentencing for serious assault injuries was insufficient, underscoring principles of proportionality and deterrence in criminal sentencing.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378(1)(b) and Section 377 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 448, 323, 324, and 326 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Conviction under Sections 326 and 324 modified to Sections 448 and 323 with imposition of fines and minimal imprisonment - The appellate court found insufficient evidence to uphold more serious charges. (Paras 1, 3, 22)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Prosecution failed to present independent witnesses and did not seize the alleged weapon of the offence, leading to reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. (Paras 12-13)

(C) Sentencing - The appellate court was lenient, imposing fines alone for serious injuries inflicted, raising concerns over miscarriage of justice due to lack of imprisonment for the gravity of the offence. (Paras 14-17)

Facts of the case:
The case revolved around an alleged incident of house-trespass and assault on 13.06.2021, where the accused forcibly entered the residence of the informant and caused injuries to him, his wife, and son, leading to hospitalization. (Paras 7-10)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court modified the lower court's conviction and reduced the sentence due to inadequate evidence supporting the serious charges while upholding the convictions under lesser offences. (Paras 22-23)

Issues: Was the modification of the conviction from serious to lesser charges permissible given the circumstances of the case and evidence? Did the appellate court err in the sentencing phase? (Paras 2, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The high court affirmed that the earlier conviction lacked sufficient evidence for serious charges, validating the appellate modification, but noted lenience in sentencing as unjust given the outcomes of the assaults. (Para 20)

Result: The appeal was disposed of with modifications to the sentences for the respondents.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeal and prior convictions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. prosecution's contentions on guilt. (Para 3 , 4)
3. defense argues for acquittal. (Para 5)
4. factual account of the incident and testimonies. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. medical examination and report findings. (Para 11 , 12)
6. court's assessment of evidence presented. (Para 13 , 14)
7. consideration of sentencing principles. (Para 15 , 16)
8. court's rationale on conviction. (Para 17 , 20 , 21)
9. final ruling and modifications to sentencing. (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

Biswajit Palit, J.

This appeal under Section 378(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 377 of Cr.P.C. is preferred challenging the order of conviction and sentence dated 15.12.2023 delivered by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with case No. Crl. Appl. No.07 of 2023. By the said order of conviction and sentence Learned Appellate Court has modified the order of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2023 under Section 326 /324/34 of IPC delivered by Learned CJM, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with case No.PRC(WP) 19 of 2022 and sentenced the respondent-accused persons to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 448 of IPC and also sentenced the respondent-accused persons to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 323 of IPC in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for each offences and thus acquitted the respondent-accused persons from the charge levelled against them under Section 324 /326 of IPC.

2. Heard Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta along with Mr. Rajib Saha, Learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-appellant and also heard Learned Counsel Mr. Ratan Datta appearing on behalf of all the respondent-accused persons.

3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned P.P. for the appellant first of all drawn the attention of this Court that in this case on the basis of an FIR laid by one Md. Ibrahim Ali, the case was registered under Section 447/326/34 of IPC against all the respondent-accused persons and after completion of investigation the IO laid charge sheet against all the respondent-accused persons under Section 447/325/34 of IPC and accordingly cognizance of offence was taken and in course of trial Learned Trial Court framed charge against all the accused persons under Section 448 /326 read with Section 34 of IPC and the same was explained to all the respondent- accused persons in bengali to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During trial to substantiate the charge prosecution has adduced in total 6 numbers of witnesses and after closer evidence of the prosecution the respondent-accused persons were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. when they pleaded innocent and also denied to adduce any witness in support of their defence and finally on conclusion of trial Learned Trial Court found the appellants to be guilty and convicted them under Section 326 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further 3 months and the Learned Trial Court further sentenced all the aforesaid convicts under Section 324 of IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further one month with a further direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

After that, the respondent-accused persons as appellants preferred an appeal before the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar who transferred the case to the Court of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar and the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar heard the case on merit and vide judgment dated 15.12.2023 set aside the sentences imposed by the Learned Trial Court under Section 326 /324/34 of IPC but modified the sentences and convicted the respondent-accused persons under Section 448 /323 of IPC.

4. Learned P.P. further drawn the attenti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top