Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 226 (TRI)

Ranjit Das v. State of Tripura

2014-06-16

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 20.12.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura in Criminal Appeal No. 8(4)/2008. The accused-petitioners, Ranjit Das and Sanjit Das along with another accused Dilip Nama were found guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khowai in Case No. GR. 139 of 2004 and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer further R.I. for 2 months. Felt aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 8(4) of 2008 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revisional application. 2. Heard learned counsel Mr. H.K. Bhowmik for the petitioners and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the State-respondent. 3. Satish Sarkar (P.W. 1) of Maiganga, P.S. Teliamura set the law in motion by filing an FIR in writing on 18.09.2004 alleging inter alia that on that day, the accused Dilip Nama called out his son Ajit Sarkar from the house and taken him near the house of accused Ranjit Das and Sanjit Das. There they had some altercation and thereafter, all on a sudden, the accused persons attacked Ajit Sarkar with dao and wooden file in hand and Dilip Nama struck dao blow on the head of Ajit and other accused persons assaulted Ajit with wooden file causing severe injury on his person and as a result, Ajit received bleeding injuries and fled away from the spot and arrived at Maiganga Chowmuhani wherefrom he was rescued by a rickshaw puller and the rickshaw puller also informed him and thereafter, his son was taken to Teliamura hospital wherefrom he was taken to G.B. hospital and was under treatment. Teliamura P.S. Case No. 52 of 2004 under Section 326/34 of IPC was registered on the basis of that FIR and after investigation, I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused petitioners as well as accused Dilip Nama for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Teliamura P.S. Case No. 52 of 2004 under Section 326/34 of IPC was registered on the basis of that FIR and after investigation, I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused petitioners as well as accused Dilip Nama for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. In course of trial, charge under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC was framed and to prove the charge, prosecution examined 9 witnesses altogether including the victim Ajit Sarkar (P.W. 7). After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and thereafter, on their turn, the accused persons did not adduce any defence evidence. Defence case is nothing, but denial of the prosecution allegation. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class by impugned Judgment dated 14.11.2008 found the accused-appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. The petitioners Ranjit Das and Sanjit Das preferred Criminal Appeal No. 08(4) of 2008, but it was dismissed and the sentence was maintained. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence and materials on record and arrived at a perverse finding and therefore, the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioners liable to be interfered and set aside. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that in the FIR, which is proved as Exbt. 1, P.W. 1 made specific statement that his son Ajit Sarkar was called out from his house by accused Dilip Nama. Nothing stated in the FIR that accused Ranjit and Sanjit visited the house of the informant and the victim on that day. P.W. 1, the informant in his evidence developed the story and stated that Ranjit and Sanjit were also with Dilip when Ajit was called out from the house. P.W. 7, the victim stated nothing about the allegation that Ranjit and Sanjit had called him out from his house on the date of alleged occurrence. It is also pointed out that the victim at the time of his examination by I.O. did not make any statement that Ranjit and Sanjit assaulted him whereas in his evidence, he made the statement involving Ranjit and Sanjit and he was contradicted with his previous statement. It is also pointed out that the victim at the time of his examination by I.O. did not make any statement that Ranjit and Sanjit assaulted him whereas in his evidence, he made the statement involving Ranjit and Sanjit and he was contradicted with his previous statement. Except the evidence of P.W. 7, there is no other evidence to involve Ranjit and Sanjit and hence, the petitioners are liable to be acquitted. 6. Learned P.P., Mr. Ghosh fairly submitted that P.W. 7 is the only witness of the occurrence and in his cross-examination, his attention was drawn to the previous statement wherein it was found that he did not name Ranjit and Sanjit at the time of examination by the I.O. However, the victim has stated the name of Ranjit and Sanjit, which is believed by the trial Court and the appellate Court and so, the Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence may be maintained. 7. Admittedly, P.W. 1 is not an eye witness of the occurrence of assault on P.W. 7. He has only stated that his son was called out by the accused persons from his house on the date of occurrence, but in Exbt. 1, the FIR, he made a specific statement that Dilip Nama came to his house and called out his son Ajit Sarkar. Had Ranjit and Sanjit accompanied Dilip Nama to call his son he would definitely state the name of Ranjit and Sanjit in the FIR. So, subsequent statement of P.W. 1 that Ranjit and Sanjit also came to his house and called out Ajit Sarkar is doubtful and the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. P.W. 1 since is not an eye witness of occurrence, was supposed to say his source of knowledge about the occurrence. He narrated about the assault of his son, Ajit Sarkar, but how he came to know about the incident and from whom he learnt the incident nothing stated in his deposition. So, his statement about the occurrence is absolutely hearsay in nature and deserves no consideration. P.Ws. 2 to 6 stated nothing incriminating against the petitioners Ranjit Das and Sanjit Das. P.W. 7, the victim simply stated that 4 years ago on a day of Biswakarma Puja, he had an argument with Dilip Nama, Ranjit and Sanjit. On the next of Biswakarma Puja, those three accused assaulted him near a ground. P.Ws. 2 to 6 stated nothing incriminating against the petitioners Ranjit Das and Sanjit Das. P.W. 7, the victim simply stated that 4 years ago on a day of Biswakarma Puja, he had an argument with Dilip Nama, Ranjit and Sanjit. On the next of Biswakarma Puja, those three accused assaulted him near a ground. Accused Dilip Nama struck blow with back side of a dao and Ranjit and Sanjit beaten him with wooden files. He ran away from the spot and fell unconscious. He regained his sense at G.B. Hospital. Later on, he came to know that Sankar Mandal and his aunt shifted him to hospital. He remained hospitalized for about one month. In cross-examination by the defence, he stated that he told police officer that accused Ranjit and Sanjit assaulted him with wooden file. His attention was drawn to his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and no such statement was found. He denied the suggestion that he was not assaulted by the accused Ranjit and Sanjit. The statement of P.W. 7, the victim Ajit Sarkar, therefore, makes it clear that he in his earlier statement did not name Ranjit and Sanjit as his assailants. He first named them before the Court. His such statement has not been corroborated by any other cogent evidence on record. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult to believe the belated statement of P.W. 7 about his assault by the accused-petitioners Ranjit and Sanjit. Therefore, the accused-petitioners Ranjit and Sanjit are entitled to get benefit of doubt. 8. Accordingly, the revisional application filed by accused Ranjit Das and Sanjit Das is allowed. The Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence in respect of accused-petitioners Ranjit Das and Sanjit Das dated 14.11.2008 in Case No. GR. 139 of 2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khowai sentencing the petitioners under 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, which is affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge by Judgment dated 20.12.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 8(4) of 2008 are set aside and quashed. They are set at liberty. 9. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this Judgment.