Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 374 (TRI)

Debasish Majumder v. State of Tripura

2014-11-13

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.12.2005, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Sessions Trial No. 32 (ST/B) 2005, whereunder, the appellant Debasish Majumder alias Pandit was found guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 107 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further he was found guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 107 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months. 2. Learned counsel, Mr. R. Saha under instruction of learned counsel, Mr. B. Nandi Majumder is present for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath is also present for the State respondent. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel of both side that Sessions Trial Case No. 32 (ST/B) 2005 was taken up by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia against Sri Sambhu Chakraborty, who was the principal accused and also against accused Smt. Kanu Sutradhar and the present accused-appellant, Debasish Majumder alias Pandit. The accused Sambhu Chakraborty was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 366 and 376 of IPC and accused Kanu Sutradhar and the present accused appellant were charged for abatement of commission of offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC by the principal accused Sambhu Chakraborty. It is also submitted by learned counsel of both side that accused Sambhu Chakraborty preferred Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2007 before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 11.10.2012 acquitted accused Sambhu Chakraborty who is the principal accused of the case and the State has not challenged that judgment passed by this Court. Accused Kanu Sutradhar has already been acquitted by the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Saha, therefore, in view of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2007 prayed for acquittal of the present accused-appellant. 5. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath with all his fairness conceded the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Accused Kanu Sutradhar has already been acquitted by the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Saha, therefore, in view of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2007 prayed for acquittal of the present accused-appellant. 5. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath with all his fairness conceded the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Saha and further submitted that where the principal accused has already been acquitted by this Court in appeal, the present accused appellant who was alleged to be an abettor of the offence may have the same fate as that of the principal accused. 6. I have meticulously gone through the impugned judgment passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the evidence on record. The record of Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2007 is also placed before Court along with the present appeal. I have meticulously gone through the judgment dated 11.10.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2007. I find nothing to re-appreciate the evidence on record to arrive at a contrary finding than that has been recorded in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2007 in respect of the present accused appellant. 7. The present accused-appellant, therefore is acquitted from the charges on benefit of doubt and set at liberty. 8. The criminal appeal accordingly stands disposed of. 9. Record of criminal appeal No. 59 of 2007 shows that the L.C. record has already been sent back to the Lower Court. Send a copy of this judgment to the Court below.