Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 306 (TRI)

Ranjit Dey v. State of Tripura

2014-08-02

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:-- 1. By filing this revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC, the accused petitioners, named above, challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.03.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 2(1)/2006, whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.12.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Udaipur in case No. G.R.482 of 2004 under Sections 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and modified the sentence under Section 323 of IPC, with a direction that the accused petitioners shall suffer sentence of SI for three months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 323 of IPC and upheld the sentence of SI for one month and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 341 of IPC as passed by learned trial judge. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. Sarkar for the accused petitioners and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent. 3. Prosecution case is that on 12.12.2004, at about 9.00 PM, Subrata Debnath(PW1) went to the house of Babul Chakraborty to take prasad of Parameswar Puja and at that time the accused petitioners, Jagadish Chakraborty and Ranjit Dey armed with lathi, dao, etc. attacked him and inflicted blows causing bleeding injuries. When his brother Sukanta Debnath(PW3) came to his rescue he was also beaten up by the accused persons causing injuries. After the incident, they were taken to Tripura Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur where they were treated for the injuries. 3.1. On the basis of FIR lodged by PW1, Subrata Debnath, R.K. Pur PS Case No. 460 of 2004 under Sections 325, 326, 397 and Section 34 of IPC was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341,323 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3.2. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and thereafter in course of trial learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, examined the accused petitioners under Section 251 of CrPC on 10.06.2005 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.3. 3.2. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and thereafter in course of trial learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, examined the accused petitioners under Section 251 of CrPC on 10.06.2005 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.3. In course of trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses including the victim, injured PWs 1 and 3 and the medical officers, i.e. PWs 5 and 8. 3.4. After the recording of prosecution evidence was over the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of CrPC and in their turn they adduced no defence evidence. Defence case is that of denial of the prosecution case. 3.5. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, considering the evidence on record found both the accused petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly sentenced them to suffer SI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further SI for two months under Section 323 of IPC. For commission of offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC learned Magistrate sentenced both the accused petitioners to suffer SI for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for one month. 4. Aggrieved, the convict/accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2(1) of 2006 and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal with modification of sentence under Section 323 of IPC as indicated hereinbefore. The accused petitioners felt aggrieved and filed the present revisional application. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Sarkar appearing on behalf of the accused petitioners fairly submits that he has nothing to say about the finding of conviction but his only submission is that it was a fit case where the trial Court as well as the appellate Court would give the benefit of Section 360 of CrPC or Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act but that has not been given to the accused petitioners. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Debnath also has submitted that the case has been proved but since the offence is very simple the accused petitioners may be released on probation. 6. I have carefully gone through the evidence and materials on record. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Debnath also has submitted that the case has been proved but since the offence is very simple the accused petitioners may be released on probation. 6. I have carefully gone through the evidence and materials on record. The evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 7 in respect of assault by the accused persons has been proved by the medical evidence adduced by PWs 5 and 8. The injuries, all were simple in nature. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court found the accused persons guilty of offence punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC only. Since the of offence is very simple in nature the trial Court would give them the benefit under Section 360 of CrPC or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in the given facts and circumstances. The trial Court has refused to give the benefit but assigned no cogent reason. The appellate Court, unfortunately, did not even consider the point at the time of giving judgment. I think, it is a fit case where the accused petitioners may be released on probation of their good conduct. 7. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is upheld. It is hereby ordered that the accused petitioners should be released on probation on their furnishing of a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount each on condition to appear and receive sentence within a period of two years from the date of execution of the bond and within the period of two years they should keep the peace and be of good behaviour. During the period of probation they should remain under the supervision of the Probation Officer, South Tripura, Udaipur. The Probation Officer may submit report time to time to the Court of the learned Magistrate as and when the occasion shall arise. 8. With this direction the criminal revisional application is disposed of. 9. Send back the L.C. Records along with a copy of this judgment.