Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 323 (TRI)

Ranjit Debnath v. State of Tripura

2014-08-11

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 and order dated 05.05.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2014, whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.03.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in PRC Case No. 829 of 2012. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. M.K. Roy for the petitioner and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the State respondent. 3. Prosecution case is that on 21.08.2012, accused Ranjit Debnath took his dinner in the house of informant, Narayan Natta and thereafter slept in the house of the informant. At about 4.00 AM the accused took the motorbike of the informant Narayan Natta, bearing No. TR-01-N-5815 and drove it away. Manik Natta, the cousin brother of informant Narayan Natta found the accused riding the motorbike and on his query, accused Ranjit Debnath told him that he was going to bring back the wife of Narayan Natta. Thereafter, the informant made a search to find out the accused and his motorbike but could not. FIR was lodged on 02.09.2012 alleging the incident. The accused was absconding and he was arrested from Dharmanagar by the police in course of investigation of the case. 3.1. Charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 380 of IPC and accordingly cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who initiated trial against the accused. In course of trial, charge was framed under Section 380 of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.2. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in course of trial and defence adduced no evidence. Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the defence case is that of denial and nothing else. 3.3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the accused guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for two years and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for three months. 4. Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2014 in the Court of Sessions Judge and by impugned judgment dated 05.05.2014 learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and hence this revisional application. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. 4. Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2014 in the Court of Sessions Judge and by impugned judgment dated 05.05.2014 learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and hence this revisional application. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy has submitted that the accused has already suffered in custody for one year three months and he has been released on bail while the appeal was pending. It is further submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy that the evidence of prosecution witnesses suffers from contradictions and inconsistencies here and there and therefore the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court cannot sustain. Referring to the cross-examination of PW3, the informant, learned counsel has submitted that in cross-examination PW3 stated that the incident occurred in the year 2008 whereas the FIR was lodged in 2012 and that inconsistency is enough to disbelieve the prosecution case as a whole. He has also submitted that except PW2, other witnesses, all made a developed statement which has been contradicted with their previous statement and based on such a solo evidence conviction cannot sustain. Learned P.P. on the other hand has submitted that contradiction what is noticed on record is normal human conduct and the trial Court as well as the appellate Court duly considered those contradictions and then has taken the truth to consideration for arriving at a correct decision. It is also submitted by Mr. Ghosh, learned P.P. that there is no major contradiction in the evidence of the eyewitness of the occurrence and based on his evidence prosecution case is established and the Courts below rightly arrived at a conclusion that the accused is guilty. 6. In a revisional application, this Court is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of a judgment/order passed by the inferior Court and regularity of the proceedings before such Court. The revisional Court is not required to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence on record in details unless there is perversity in the appreciation of evidence by Courts below. If the evidence on record has been properly considered by the trial Court and the appellate Court, the revisional Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a contrary decision to that of the decision arrived by the trial Court and the appellate Court. 7. I have meticulously gone through the records. If the evidence on record has been properly considered by the trial Court and the appellate Court, the revisional Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a contrary decision to that of the decision arrived by the trial Court and the appellate Court. 7. I have meticulously gone through the records. The prosecution case is that the accused being known to the informant took his dinner in his house and then slept in the house of the informant and at dawn the accused went away with the motorbike of the informant. He was thereafter absconding and was caught by the police at Dharmanagar. PW2 made a consistent statement that he found the accused moving with the motorbike and on his query the accused told him that he was going to take back the sister-in-law of the witness, i.e. the wife of the informant. The motorbike could not be recovered. According to the prosecution, it was sold out to someone of Bangladesh through one Babul Miah whose identity could not be traced out during investigation. The evidence of PW2 remained unaffected in cross-examination. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court placed implicit reliance on the evidence of PW2 and the evidence of PW3. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 has not been shattered in the cross-examination or otherwise. In his cross-examination, PW3 stated that the incident occurred on 21.08.2012 whereas in his examination-in-chief he made a clear statement that the incident occurred on 21.08.2008. So his statement in cross-examination cannot through the prosecution case overboard and I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly considered the factual aspect of the evidence on record. Since I find no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. However, the accused already suffered imprisonment of one year three months as submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I think imprisonment of one year six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed with modification of sentence. However, the accused already suffered imprisonment of one year three months as submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I think imprisonment of one year six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed with modification of sentence. It is directed that the accused petitioner shall suffer RI for one year and six months and shall pay a fine of ` 5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default of payment of fine to suffer further SI for three months and the fine money if realized be given to the informant as compensation. The accused should surrender and serve out the remaining period of sentence. 8. Send back the L.C. Records along with a copy of this judgment. 9. The revisional application accordingly stands disposed of.