Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 114 (TRI)

Sanjit Kar v. State of Tripura

2014-02-28

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.2008, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura, in Criminal Appeal No. 20(4) of 2008, whereby learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the accused appellant guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 456 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer SI for six months and to pay a fine of ` 500/- (rupees fine hundred), in default of payment to suffer SI for two months. The accused petitioner was tried in GR Case No. 276 of 2006 by learned SDJM, Belonia for commission of offence punishable under Section 457, 380 read with Section 511 of IPC and learned SDJM found the accused-petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him and sentenced him to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default of payment, to suffer SI for one month under Section 457 of IPC and he was further sentenced to suffer SI for six months and to pay a fine of `1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for one month under Section 380read with Section 511 of IPC. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned SDJM, an appeal was preferred before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while converting the conviction to one under Section 456 of IPC, sentenced the accused petitioner as aforesaid. Having felt aggrieved the revisional application is filed. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D. Sarkar and learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Roy for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent. 3. Learned counsel, Mr. Sarkar has submitted that the informant and other material witnesses, i.e. PWs 2 and 3 made contradictory and inconsistent statements in respect of the alleged occurrence and under such circumstances the total prosecution case is liable to be disbelieved. It is contended by Mr. Sarkar and Mr. Roy that there is no evidence to prove the criminal intention of the accused which is necessary for punishing under Section 456 of IPC. It is contended by Mr. Sarkar and Mr. Roy that there is no evidence to prove the criminal intention of the accused which is necessary for punishing under Section 456 of IPC. The accused had a quarrel with PW 2, the brother of the informant and also the accused was due to get some amount from the informant and for all those enmities the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal case. It is further submitted by Mr. Sarkar and Mr. Roy that PW 7, who is an independent witness of the locality, has stated a different story which did not support the story narrated by the informant and other two witnesses, i.e. PWs 2 and 3. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for giving the accused benefit of doubt. 4. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Debnath on the other hand, has submitted that the material fact for which charge has been framed against the accused has been proved with sufficient evidence on record and there is no reliable defence story to give the accused benefit of doubt in any manner. Learned Addl. P.P., therefore, prayed for maintaining the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 5. Prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 05.09.2006 and 06.09.2006, at about 1200 hrs., the accused entered into the residential hut of the informant (PW 6), Kusum Begam and when she raised alarm PWs 2, 3 and other neighbourers arrived there and the accused was caught red-handed and, thereafter handed over to police. In the FIR lodged by PW 6 it is alleged that the accused trespassed in her hut through the gaps of the mud-wall and tin-roof of the hut at about 12 p.m. and she woke up and raised alarm. People from the neighbourhood came and caught the accused petitioner red-handed and, thereafter handed over to police. In her deposition PW 6 stated that she was sleeping in her hut at about 12 p.m. and at that time her brother PW 2 and PW 3, Ritan Mog came to her house, called her and she woke up and lighted the lamp and found the accused standing in her hut. Neighbourers came and caught the accused and, thereafter handed over him to police. PWs 2 and 3 materially corroborated the fact. Other witnesses also corroborated the material fact. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. Sarkar stressed on the evidence of PW 7. Neighbourers came and caught the accused and, thereafter handed over him to police. PWs 2 and 3 materially corroborated the fact. Other witnesses also corroborated the material fact. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. Sarkar stressed on the evidence of PW 7. PW 7 also substantially corroborated the prosecution case. The accused did not come out with any definite case as to why he went there and entered into the hut of the victim, i.e. the informant in such dead hours of night. There are some discrepancies hither and thither in the evidence on record but those discrepancies did not vitiate the prosecution case as a whole. 7. In a revisional application, this Court is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and order passed by the inferior Court and regularity of the proceeding before such Court. This Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence, which has been appreciated already by the trial Court and the appellate Court. The trial Court and the appellate Court in the facts and circumstances, as it appears, correctly arrived at a conclusion that the accused entered into the hut of the informant (PW 6) in dead hours of night and the accused could not come out with any explanation or any defence story about his purpose of entering into the hut of the informant at such dead hours of night. 8. In the circumstances, I find nothing to interfere in the finding of the conviction and sentence under Section 456 of IPC arrived by learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The incident occurred on 05.09.2006. In the meantime, more than seven years almost elapsed. The accused, no doubt, suffered a lot. So, considering the facts and circumstances and the time elapsed in the meantime, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced. He shall suffer sentence of RI for two months and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/- (rupees three thousand), in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for one and half months. 9. With this reduction of the punishment the criminal revision petition stands disposed of. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of the judgment.