Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 392 (TRI)

Sanju Nama v. State of Tripura

2014-11-24

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., directed against judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.03.2012, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura, in Sessions Trial case No. 01(ST/B)/2012. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the accused respondent No. 2, Sri Sibu Malakar from the charge framed against him under Section 436 of IPC and hence the informant-victim, Smt. Sanju Nama filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal. 2. Prosecution case is that Smt. Sanju Nama, the appellant herein, lodged an FIR in writing before O/C Baikhora P.S. on 17.11.2011 at about 12.15 pm alleging that on 15.11.2011 at about 11.00 pm, accused Sibu Malakar was found standing nearby a light post, a little away from her house, by her son Biswajit and after sometime the said Sibu Malakar set fire to her kitchen room and as a result the kitchen room was gutted. They chased the accused and on their cry neighbourers also came and the kitchen house was completely gutted. O/C Baikhora P.S. accordingly registered Baikhora P.S. Case No. 91 of 2011 under Section 436 of IPC and after investigation submitted charge sheet against accused Sibu Malakar. In course of trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove the charge. After the recording the prosecution evidence was over the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and in his turn the accused examined two witnesses. Defence case is that of the denial of the prosecution case and it is the further case of the defence that the informant used to put rubber sheets for drying inside the kitchen and accidentally the fire was caught in the kitchen because of the rubber sheets and it was gutted. Accused was not involved in the incident. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge at the conclusion of trial by impugned judgment acquitted the accused from the charge and hence this appeal. 4. It may be mentioned here that the State did not prefer any appeal against the order of acquittal and hence the informant-victim filed the appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.. 5. Heard learned counsel, Mr. B. Nandi Majumder for the appellant. 4. It may be mentioned here that the State did not prefer any appeal against the order of acquittal and hence the informant-victim filed the appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.. 5. Heard learned counsel, Mr. B. Nandi Majumder for the appellant. None present for the respondents. 6. The incident as alleged occurred on 15.11.2011 at about 2300 hrs. The FIR was lodged on 17.11.2011 at 1215 hrs. FIR is marked as Exbt. 1. No explanation was given in the FIR as to why there was delay in lodging the FIR. In her deposition the informant stated that in the next morning on the night of occurrence she went to one Kumud Nama, a Local Committee Secretary and informed him about the incident but nothing was done and therefore the FIR was lodged on 17.11.2011. That Kumud Nama has not been examined to prove that any such Kumud Nama was informed on the following day and therefore the FIR was not lodged on the night of the occurrence or on the following day. 7. It is an admitted position that the relation between the families of the informant and the accused was bitter. A delayed FIR therefore may be fatal for the prosecution if no reasonable explanation is given. No doubt, law has not fixed any time for lodging FIR. A prompt and immediate lodging of the FIR is the ideal as that would give the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it affords commencement of investigation without any time lapse. Second is that it expels the opportunity for any possible concoction of a false version. Where there was a delay in lodging the FIR and the relationship between the informant and the accused person was strained, an embellishment or afterthought cannot be ruled out. Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR in the present case therefore is fatal for the prosecution. 8. Further, as I find, P.W. 1 in her evidence stated that at about 10.30/10.45 pm she along with her two sons PWs 2 and 3 were in their hut and fell asleep. In cross-examination she stated that she saw the kitchen on fire at about 11.30 pm. 8. Further, as I find, P.W. 1 in her evidence stated that at about 10.30/10.45 pm she along with her two sons PWs 2 and 3 were in their hut and fell asleep. In cross-examination she stated that she saw the kitchen on fire at about 11.30 pm. Hearing the sound of burning of the kitchen she and her two sons went out and it is the evidence of the informant and her two sons that after coming out of the hut they found Sibu Malakar, the accused running away. It is quite unnatural that an accused after setting fire in the house of another would be waiting in the courtyard of that house till the inmates comes out. Except PW4 who is the brother-in-law of P.W. 1, the other witnesses did not support the contention of PWs 1, 2 and 3 that after the incident PWs 1, 2 and 3 chased behind the accused, Sibu Malakar up to the school. PWs 6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. P.W. 8 was tendered by the prosecution. PW9 is simply a scribe of the FIR. PW5 only stated that he was told by the informant that Sibu Malakar set the fire. So, except PWs 1, 2 and 3, i.e. the mother and two sons and PW4 who is brother-in-law of P.W. 1, none other neighbouring people supported the prosecution case. Accused examined two defence witnesses and they stated that on their query the informant did not state anything about how the fire broke out in the kitchen. In their cross-examination the informant and her two sons stated that they used to put rubber sheets in the kitchen for drying up. They used fire wood in the kitchen. So, it cannot be ruled out that the rubber sheets put for drying up in the kitchen somehow caught fire and as a result the kitchen house was gutted. It also cannot be ruled out that because of enmity/ill relation the accused has been implicated later on after one day's of the incident. 9. The trial Court recorded an order of acquittal analyzing the evidence on record. In a criminal trial, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty. The presumption multiplies when an order of acquittal is recorded by the trial Court. 9. The trial Court recorded an order of acquittal analyzing the evidence on record. In a criminal trial, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty. The presumption multiplies when an order of acquittal is recorded by the trial Court. In the present case, as I find, the trial Court recorded adequate reason in arriving at a finding of acquittal. I find no cogent reason to convert it to an order of conviction. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands dismissed. 10. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of the judgment.