HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl. Rev. P. No. 70 of 2025

1. Sri Ranabir Das, S/o of late Ruhini Kumar Das, Aged about 48 years, resident of Industry Road,North Kumarghat, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti, Tripura.

2. Sri Hrishikesh Deb, Son of Haribal Deb, aged about 50 years, resident of K N. Road, Kumarghat, P.S. Kumarghat, District-Unakoti, Tripura.

3. Smt. Archana Malakar, D/o Late Kamal Chandra Malakar, aged about 43 years, resident of Tongibari, Lalchari Colony, P.S. Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura, resently residing at Chand Tilla, C/o Rabindranath Debnath, near Petrol Pump, Panisagar, District-North Tripura.

---- Petitioner(s)

Versus The State of Tripura, Crime Branch, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Tripura.

---- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pijush Kanti Biswas, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Suman Tripura, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.

Whether fit for reporting : NO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Judgment & Order (Oral)

15.12.2025 This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 corresponding to Section 442 read with Section 438 of BNSS is filed for setting aside the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala in S.T. (Type-1) 03 of 2017.

2. Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pijush Kanti Biswas, assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Suman Tripura, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and also heard Learned PP Mr. Raju Datta, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. At the time of hearing Learned Senior Counsel first of all drawn the attention of the court referring Annexure-2 i.e. the petition filed by the petitioner accused persons under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. before the Learned Trial Court for recalling of PW-1 and submitted that though due to mistake and oversight some questions could not be put to the PW-1 which are either contradictory and material improvement over the statement made in the FIR the said mistake was detected when the defense counsel was preparing for the cross-examination of the Investigation Officer.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the said PW-1 is required to be re-called in this case to answer the following questions:-

i. Have you stated in the FIR that she (Chayanika Banik) was having an umbrella of pink colour and she was also having wrist watch (Sonata company), one pink coloured ladies handbag and she was also wearing one golden chain in her neck, golden ear rings and four finger rings?

ii. Have you stated in your FIR that from the very date of marriage, problem cropped up as the bride-groom parties were not satisfied about the hotel arrangements of followers of bride-groom who came in the marriage, after the marriage and on the following day, she went to her matrimonial home but since after marriage, on the issue of non satisfaction of hotel arrangement during marriage, she was mentally harassed in her matrimonial home; for about 2 and half months, she stayed at her matrimonial home at Kumarghat and thereafter, she sought shelter to me?

iii. Have you stated in the FIR that however before the incident in a couple of occasions, she again went back but again and again, she was mentally harassed by her husband in matrimonial home; even Ranabir refused to attend phone calls of Chayanika at different times while she was staying with me (you)?

iv. Have you stated in the FIR that ultimately Chayanika again came back to me (you) at Agartala, since then there was no communication of Chayanika with Ranabir; even he did not used to attend phone calls of Chayanika. Also, did you state in the FIR that during the period of her stay at matrimonial home, Ranabir did not bear the expenses of her including fooding and clothing?

v. Have you stated in the FIR that on 1.10.2015 i.e. on the day of Chayanika's missing, you searched her out in her school, tried to meet with the principal of the school but he was out of state and you met with wife of principal and discussed about Chayanika with her, I(you) also made conta