Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 344 (TRI)

Dhananjoy Das v. State of Tripura

2014-10-29

S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the state. 2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2007 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 27(3)/2003 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, upholding the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.07.2003 delivered in G.R. No. 1062/2001 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura. By the said judgment dated 02.07.2003, the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 353 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer two years' simple imprisonment under Section 353 of the IPC and one year simple imprisonment under Section 323 of the IPC. Though the judgment of conviction has been upheld, but the appellate court has interfered with the sentence in the following terms: "Having regard to such discussion on the quantum of sentence this court is of opinion that a simple imprisonment for a term of 6(six) months instead of 2(two) years would be appropriate to meet the ends of justice for offence committed U/s. 353 IPC and for a term of SI for one month for the offence committed U/s. 323 IPC." Being aggrieved by that judgment passed by the appellate court on 23.07.2007, this petition has been preferred. 3. It appears that the petitioner had been examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. for committing the offence under Section 341/323/353 of the IPC, but the trial court on appreciating the evidence, acquitted him from the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC. 4. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the appellate court, even though the victim and the petitioner had filed a petition for allowing to compound the offence punishable under Section 353 and 323 of the IPC, but no consideration of the said petition dated 03.09.2003 was at all taken by the appellate court while passing the impugned judgment. Mr. Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel has fairly submitted that it has been asserted erroneously in the said petition filed under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. that the offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC is compoundable, but according to Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the said offence for deterring public servant from discharging his duty by assault or criminal force is not an offence compoundable within the ambit of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel has emphatically submitted that the said petition should have been taken into consideration by the appellate court while reconsidering the sentence. 5. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the state has submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction. However, he did not oppose the proposition of law as projected by Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. 6. Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has in reply submitted that there is no material to convict the petitioner under Section 353 of the IPC. This court, on consideration of the petition filed under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., may take a lenient view by converting the sentence of imprisonment to that of fine, which would serve the ends of justice. 7. After perusing the records placed before this court as well as on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the decisions of the apex court in Ram Lal & Anr. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported in 1999 CRI.L.J. 1342, where the apex court has held that: "However, considering the fact that parties have come to a settlement and the victims have no grievance now and considering the further fact that first appellant has already undergone a period of imprisonment of about six months, a lenient view can be taken and the sentence can be reduced to a period which he had already undergone. We order so and direct the jail authority to set him at liberty forthwith," this court is of the view that the sentence of the petitioner may be converted to the fine without interfering the impugned judgment of conviction. 8. Accordingly, the sentence is interfered with. The petitioner is sentenced for committing the offence under Sections 353/323 of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 8. Accordingly, the sentence is interfered with. The petitioner is sentenced for committing the offence under Sections 353/323 of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 2,000 (rupees two thousand), to be deposited within a period of a month from today in the trial court. After such fine is paid, the sureties of the petitioner shall stand discharged from their obligations. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment of 1(one) month each for committing the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 323 of the IPC. The sentences, however, shall run concurrently in the event of default. 9. Having held so, this petition stands partly allowed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.