Identification evidence without corroboration lacks credibility; the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-2-2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Criminal Appeal No. 17 (2) / 2001, confirming the conviction under S.323, IPC and 341, IPC, as rendered by the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, West Tripura, Agartala, vide judgment dated 17/03/2001, passed in G.R. Case No. 288/1999. However, by the judgment dated 05/02/2004, the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year, as imposed by the learned trial Court to a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months, under S.323, IPC. The learned trial Court had imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for a term of one month for the offence under S.341, IPC and the same was maintained.

2. At this stage, it would be appropriate to mention that the learned trial Court had convicted four accused persons, namely, (1) Sri Debasish Sarkar, (2) Sri Sajal Ghosh, (3) Sri Sudhan Biswas and (4) Sri Babul Saha, for the offences under S.341/323, IPC and handed out sentences in equal measure. The appellate Court, however, set aside the conviction and sentence with regard to Sri Sajal Ghosh, Sri Sudhan Biswas and Sri Babul Saha. The present revision petition is accordingly, preferred by Sri Debasish Sarkar.

3. The genesis of the prosecution case, is that, an FIR was lodged 16/04/1999 by one Dr. Triguna Debbarma, stating that he had gone to a shop called ' _RAFCO - in connection with repair of a Fridge on 15-4-1999 and had paid a sum of Rs. 50/- for such repair. As the Fridge was not properly repaired, he wanted the money back or to have it repaired once again and, therefore, went to RAFCO again on 16-4-1999 and on 16-4-1999, an altercation had ensued, which resulted in his being beaten up. Finally, he was rescued by one Dr. Swapan Kumar Chanda and by some other persons, who had taken him to the hospital for treatment.

4. On conclusion of investigation, charge - sheet was laid against the four accused persons, namely, (1) Sri Debasish Sarkar, (2) Sri Sajal Ghosh, (3) Sri Sudhan Biswas and (4) Sri Babul Saha, under S.341/323/34 IPC. On examination under S.251, CrPC the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and, accordingly, the accused faced trial punishable under S.341/323, IPC.

5. During trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses, while defence adduce no evidence. The accused persons were examined under S.313, CrPC where they denied the allegations made against them.

6. I have heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State of Tripura.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence on record to hold the petitioner guilty under S.341/323, IPC. The learned counsel also submits that the conviction has been passed solely on the basis of identification of the petitioner by PW 8 (informant) in the Court room. He further submits that there is no other corroborative evidence on record and, therefore, such identification by the informant (PW 8), during trial, could not have formed the sole basis for conviction of the petitioner. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by not examining material witnesses from the place of occurrence, where number of shops are located. None of the witnesses, apart from PW 8 in the manner aforesaid, had implicated the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit as has been given to the other three accused persons, by way of acquitting him of the offences alleged.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex C