Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 245 (TRI)

Tari Kanta Tripura v. State of Tripura

2014-06-26

S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the state. 2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, in Case No. S.T.60(ST.S)/2011. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000, in default thereof, to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Resham Laxmi Tripura had been allegedly killed on 12.02.2009 and her dead-body was buried in a ditch. On the basis of a disclosure statement, the said dead-body was exhumed from a ditch in presence of one Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, on the basis of the First Information Report (FIR) filed by one Sub-Inspector of Police, namely Gouranga Biswas (PW. 5), Manu Bazar P.S. Case No. 06/2009 was registered under Sections /201/34 of the IPC. After due investigation, the chargesheet was filed against three persons including the present appellant. 4. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, who framed the charge against the accused persons under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 201 of the IPC, to which the appellant alongwith others pleaded not guilty and claimed to face the trial. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 16 witnesses and introduced in the evidence 25 documents, including the inquest report, the disclosure statement of Tari Kanta Tripura, the present appellant etc. 6. Since Mr. B. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has at the outset submitted that he would prefer not to challenge the finding of conviction as passed by the trial court, but he questions the term of imprisonment as imposed on the appellant by way of sentence. But, Mr. Majumder has urged this court to release the appellant as he had already undergone imprisonment for one year six months and twenty five days. According to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel, the sentence is not commensurate to the offence that the appellant has been convicted for committing. 7. Mr. But, Mr. Majumder has urged this court to release the appellant as he had already undergone imprisonment for one year six months and twenty five days. According to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel, the sentence is not commensurate to the offence that the appellant has been convicted for committing. 7. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the state has submitted that since the appellant has waived the challenge to the finding on the conviction, this court may not reappraise the evidence afresh. 8. Having persuaded by the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court refrains from appraising the evidence afresh and holds that the conviction returned by the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. But, this court has sifted the role of the convict-appellant in commission of the offence and, finds that he was virtually forced to act. 9. In view of above, it is directed that the sentence shall be reduced to the period of imprisonment that the appellant has by now suffered, subject to payment of fine of Rs.500 (rupees five hundred), in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for five days. 10. Having held so, this appeal is dismissed, subject to the modification in the sentence as indicated. Send down the LCRs forthwith.