Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 162 (TRI)

Nil Kumar Das v. State of Tripura

2014-05-05

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC is directed against the judgment and order of conviction of sentence dated 02.12.2008, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura, Kailashahar, in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2008, whereunder the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 28.06.2008, passed by learned SDJM, Kamalpur, North Tripura in Case No. G.R. 173/2007, of the petitioner under Section 324 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta for the petitioner and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the State respondent. 3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 29.08.2007 at about 3.00 pm, PW4 Harinanda Das was on way to his house, and at that time accused petitioner Nil Kumar Das with a spade in his hand and his wife Lahna Das with a lathi in her hand attacked Harinanda. Accused Nil Kumar inflicted spade blows on the head of Harinanda and Lahna inflicted lathi blows and, as a result, Harinanda received injuries and fell down on the earth. Nil Kumar further inflicted spade blows and Lahna also inflicted lathi blows on the person of Harinanda, causing serious injuries on the head and hand of Harinanda. 4. On the basis of an FIR lodged by Jharna Das(PW1), wife of Harinanda Das, O/C Kamalpur PS registered Kamalpur PS Case No. 53/2007 under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and after investigation submitted charge sheet against both the accused persons named in the FIR. 5. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and in due course learned SDJM framed charge against accused Nil Kumar Das under Section 324 of IPC and against Lahna Das under Section 323 of IPC and they pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses and also exhibited the FIR, hand-sketch map of the place of occurrence, injury report of the victim, etc. Defence cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and after closure of the prosecution evidence both the accused were examined under Section313 of CrPC. Defence adduced no evidence. Defence case is denial of the prosecution case. 7. Learned SDJM found both the accused persons guilty of the charges and sentenced Nil Kumar Das to suffer RI for two years and Lahna Das to suffer RI for six months. 8. Defence adduced no evidence. Defence case is denial of the prosecution case. 7. Learned SDJM found both the accused persons guilty of the charges and sentenced Nil Kumar Das to suffer RI for two years and Lahna Das to suffer RI for six months. 8. Both the convicts preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4/2008 and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, maintaining the judgment and order of conviction, reduced the sentence of Nil Kumar Das to suffer RI for eight months and released accused Lahna Das on probation of good conduct. Aggrieved, the convict Nil Kumar Das preferred the present revisional application. 9. While exercising revisional jurisdiction the revisional Court is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment/order passed by the inferior Court and to see the regularity of the proceedings conducted by the inferior Court or the Tribunal. The Court is not ordinarily required to re-appreciate the evidence unless it is shown that the judgment is passed without appreciating the evidence on record or that it has been passed on inadmissible evidence or no evidence. 10. Learned counsel, Mr. Datta appearing for the petitioner very fairly and frankly has submitted that there is evidence against the petitioner that he has caused the injury on the person of PW4 Harinanda Das. He has submitted that the accused Nil Kumar Das and Harinanda Das, both are residents of the same village residing in the same locality. Learned counsel, Mr. Datta has also submitted that there was a theft case instituted against Harinanda by the accused and that another proceeding was initiated in the Court of SDJM between the parties. It is also submitted by Mr. Datta, learned counsel that the accused petitioner has suffered a lot in the meantime and so he may be released on probation or at least the sentence of imprisonment may be converted to a sentence of fine. It is also submitted by Mr. Datta that if the accused petitioner suffers imprisonment he may lose his job since he is working in a private farm. 11. Learned P.P., Mr. Ghosh, with all his fairness, has submitted that besides the victim there are two other eyewitnesses of occurrence, i.e. PWs 2 and 6, and the doctor(PW9) corroborated the evidence. So, it is proved that the accused petitioner dealt spade blows on the head of the victim Harinanda causing injuries. 11. Learned P.P., Mr. Ghosh, with all his fairness, has submitted that besides the victim there are two other eyewitnesses of occurrence, i.e. PWs 2 and 6, and the doctor(PW9) corroborated the evidence. So, it is proved that the accused petitioner dealt spade blows on the head of the victim Harinanda causing injuries. He has, however let the matter to the consideration of the Court whether the sentence will be converted to fine only or not considering the fact that the victim is working in a private concern and they are living in the same locality. 12. I have gone through the judgment passed by the trial Court as well by the appellate Court. The evidence, as I find has been properly appreciated by both the trial Court as well the appellate Court. I, therefore find nothing to interfere in the finding of conviction arrived by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. However, as I find the incident occurred in the year 2007 and the petitioner has suffered a lot in the meantime. So, considering the submission of learned counsel of both side the sentence of the accused petitioner is converted to fine only. While maintaining the judgment and order of conviction under Section 324 of IPC the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of `5,000/-(rupees five thousand) in default of payment to suffer SI for three months. Fine money, if realized, be given to the victim, i.e. PW4, Harinanda Das. 13. With this modification of sentence the revisional application stands dismissed. Send back the L.C. records along with the copy of the judgment.