Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 71 (TRI)

Ranjit Debbarma v. State of Tripura

2016-03-16

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : This petition by Sri Ranjit Debbarma is directed against the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.2, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has framed charges against the petitioner for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 121, 121(A), 122, 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also offences punishable under Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in Case No. S.T. (WT/A) 68 of 2003 on the basis of a supplementary charge sheet. 2. The case of the petitioner is that these charges have nothing to do with S.T. (WT/A) 68 of 2003 and the second part of his argument is that charge sheet under these very Sections has already been filed against him in FIR No.38 of 1998 leading to S.T. 162 of 2013 pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala. Charge sheet in that case was filed by the police on sometime in July or August, 2012. 3. The prosecution story is that the petitioner is an extremist, a terrorist and has been leading insurgency activities against the Union of India. It is alleged that he is promoting disharmony between different communities and is also leading those sections of insurgents who are raising the call for a separate nation outside the Union of India. 4. On the other hand, the stand of the petitioner is that whatever he may have done in the past he has now been sending communications to all including the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India that he is willing to surrender and that he is willing to enter into peaceful negotiations and also accepts the supremacy of the Indian State. 5. The question before this Court is not whether the petitioner is guilty or not. The sole question is whether the petitioner could have been charged for these offences in S.T. (WT/A) 68 of 2003. 6. In S.T. (WT/A) 68 of 2003, there were as many as 11 accused persons. Out of them, only two were initially charged and the charges against them are that on 26.04.2001 at 10.30 a.m. they along with the other absconding accused (including the petitioner) had attacked a police party at Kanta Kobra Para and had committed dacoity and murder. 6. In S.T. (WT/A) 68 of 2003, there were as many as 11 accused persons. Out of them, only two were initially charged and the charges against them are that on 26.04.2001 at 10.30 a.m. they along with the other absconding accused (including the petitioner) had attacked a police party at Kanta Kobra Para and had committed dacoity and murder. They were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 307, 396 and 427 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. 7. The prosecution story briefly was that these persons including the petitioner had attacked a police party and there was an encounter between the police and the accused persons. Seven police personnel were killed. Many were injured and the accused persons escaped taking with them some of the arms belonging to the police personnel. Initially, charge was framed against the two persons, Sri Asit Debbarma and Sri Jagadish Debbarma. It is stated at the bar that these two persons were acquitted after trial. Thereafter, Sri Ranjit Debbarma was arrested on 23.01.2013 in connection with FIR No.38 of 1998 and thereafter, he was also charged in the S.T.(WT/A) 68 of 2003. The charge framed against him reads as follows:- “That on 26.04.2001 at about 10.30 hours at Kanta Kobra under Jirania Police Station you were a unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapon such a prohibited Arms and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly viz, to commit the offence of rioting with such deadly weapon as is likely to cause death to wit prohibited Arms and you being a member of that assembly thereby committed an offence punishable under section 148 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this sessions Court. Secondly, on the aforesaid date time and place you being member of the said unlawful assembly in prosecuting the common object of that assembly while committing dacoity with Prohibited fire arms in respect of the escort party of MLA Sri Pranab Kumar Debborma and seven others to which the informant Sri Ratan Ch. Das was also a member of Escort party and committed murder of Police personnel namely Habildar Badal Bhowmik, Constable Rajendra Debborma, Rajib Debroy, Surendra Debborma, driver Bimal Deb, Sandhya Debborma, constable, ASI Narendra Debnath and there by committed the offence of 396 IPC and within the cognizance of this sessions Court. Das was also a member of Escort party and committed murder of Police personnel namely Habildar Badal Bhowmik, Constable Rajendra Debborma, Rajib Debroy, Surendra Debborma, driver Bimal Deb, Sandhya Debborma, constable, ASI Narendra Debnath and there by committed the offence of 396 IPC and within the cognizance of this sessions Court. Thirdly, on the aforesaid date time and place you being member of the said unlawful assembly in prosecuting the common object of that assembly committed dacoity with the strength of fire arms to the escort party of MLA Sri Pranab Kumar Debborma and seven others to which the informant Sri Ratan Ch. Das was also a member of Escort party and while committing dacoity, you also did an act of firing upon the police personal with the intention to kill them and under such circumstances, that if by that act you have caused death of police personnels namely Sajal Debnath, Rajkumar Singha, Sadhan Sarkar, and others and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 if the Indian Penal Code and with the cognizance of this court of Sessions. Fourthly, on the aforesaid date time and place you being a member of the said unlawful assembly in prosecuting the common object of that assembly while committing dacoity with the strength of fire arms to the escort party of MLA Sri Pranab Kumar Debborma and seven others to which the informant Sri Ratan Ch. Das was also a member of Escort party you were in possession of Prohibited arms and you used the said arms in violation of section 5 and 7 of the Arms Act and there by committed an offence punishable under section 27(1) & (2) of the Arms Act read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and with in the cognizance of this court. Fifthly, on the aforesaid date time and place you being member of the said unlawful assembly in prosecuting the common object of that assembly while committing dacoity with the strength of fire arms to the escort party of MLA Sri Pranab Kumar Debborma and seven others to which the informant Sri Ratan Ch. Fifthly, on the aforesaid date time and place you being member of the said unlawful assembly in prosecuting the common object of that assembly while committing dacoity with the strength of fire arms to the escort party of MLA Sri Pranab Kumar Debborma and seven others to which the informant Sri Ratan Ch. Das was also a member of Escort party, committed mischief by setting fire on the TRP Jeep No.459 and damaged the same to cause loss more than Rs.50/- and you there by committed an offence punishable under section 427 IPC read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and with in the cognizance of this court. Lastly, on the aforesaid date time and place you agreed with other member of an unlawful assembly to commit the offence of dacoity with murder and to cause hurt to police personnel by illegal means of firing on police personal on duly and also set fire on government servant and did the same in pursuance to the said illegal agreement to commit the offences punishable with death or imprisonment of life and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 120 B of the Indian penal code and with in the cognizance of this court of Sessions.” 8. The charge sheet filed in this case and the charges framed clearly show that the charge was specifically in relation to the occurrence which took place on 26.04.2001 and there was no other allegation of general nature against any of the accused persons in that case. This was rightly so because general allegations had already been made in the FIR No.38 of 1998 in which charge sheet was filed in the year 2012. In this case, charges have still to be framed but the relevant portion of the charge sheet filed by the police reads as follows:- “17. Brief facts of the case (Add separate sheet, if necessary) The fact of the case in brief is that on 19-03-98 at 12.34 hrs. Shri Debajyoti Gautam, the Inspr of police, O/C Agartala East P.S. lodged this complaint on behalf of the State and for the interest of public justice to the effect that 1) Ranjit Debbarma, S/O Shri Kishna Debbarma of village Esrai, PS. Sidhai, West Tripura, 2) Tikendra Debbarma, S/O Kalidhan Debbarma of Belcharra, PS Khowai, 3) Bimal Debbarma, S/O Kantamani Debbarma of Hajarai, PS. Sidhai, West Tripura, 2) Tikendra Debbarma, S/O Kalidhan Debbarma of Belcharra, PS Khowai, 3) Bimal Debbarma, S/O Kantamani Debbarma of Hajarai, PS. Kalyanpur, 4) Chitta Debbarma @ Bikash Kolai, S/O Lt. Pankhirai Debbarma of Beludhyn PS. Jirania with some other tribal people of Tripura formed an organization named All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF). The said ATTF also has its wing namely TPDF. The said ATTF association with intent to form a separate nation of Seven Sisters Comprising Tripura, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh and for secession of the said States from the Indian Union has been engaging in subversive and violent activities and thereby undermining the authority of the lawfully established Government and spreading terror and violence among the people for achieving its objective. It established linkages with other unlawful association viz, ULFA and BODO of Assam, PLA of Manipur with the aim of mobilizing their support. The TPDF President Sri Ranjit Debbarma visited Geneva on 28-07-97 and made statement at U.N. working group an indigenous populations spreading misinformation and virulent slander against the Indian Security Forces who have been in the State to protect the innocent citizens from the violent insurgent activities of the ATTF and other extremists outfits operating in Tripura and they are also plan wise trying to obstruct all developmental activities of Government agencies throughout the State. Besides that, they have been committing genocide upon the non-tribal people of the State. The said insurgent group in pursuance of their aim and object recently engaged in several violent and unlawful activities like killing of civilians, police, security forces, kidnapping of civilians to realize ransom, extortion of funds from public including business men and traders in Tripura. The insurgent group has been procuring large number of arms and ammunition through clandestins/illegal channels and inducting them secretly into Tripura through neighboring countries. They are establishing and maintaining camps in a neighboring country for the purpose of safe sanctuary, training procurement of arms and ammunitions. Said ATTF members maintaining linkages with other Tripura Tribal Extremist groups for causing and fomenting communal clashes between tribal and non-tribal communities in Tripura. As such, the Central Government has banned the activities of ATTF in Tripura vide Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi Notification F.No.9/11/97-NE.1 dated 03-04-97. Said ATTF members maintaining linkages with other Tripura Tribal Extremist groups for causing and fomenting communal clashes between tribal and non-tribal communities in Tripura. As such, the Central Government has banned the activities of ATTF in Tripura vide Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi Notification F.No.9/11/97-NE.1 dated 03-04-97. The activities of the below noted named persons and members of their associations constitute Criminal offences U/S 153(A)/153(B)/120(B)/121(A)/122 I.P.C. and 10/13 of the Unlawful activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. x x x x x x FIR alleges the commission of the following offences by the ATTF. 1. 153(A) IPC:- Promoting enmity between the classes (Tribal and Non Tribal in this case. Commission of genocide by NLFT followed by ethnic riots will be revealed). 2. 153(B) IPC:- Imputation assertion prejudicial to the National Integration (secessionist activities). 3. 120(B) IPC:- Criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for a terms for two year or upwards. 4. 121(A) IPC:- Conspiring to commit offence punishable by section 121 IPC i.e. waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of work against Govt. of India. 5. 122 IPC:- Collecting of arms etc with the intention of waging war against the Govt. of India. Section 10 of unlawful activities (Prevention) Act:- Penalty for being members of an unlawful association or for taking part in milting of any such unlawful association or contributing to or receiving or soliciting any contribution for the purpose of any such unlawful association or in any way assisting the operation of any such unlawful association. Section 13 of unlawful activities (Prevention) Act:- Penalty for (one) taking part in or committee or advocating, abetting, advising or inciting the commission of any unlawful activities. (Two) Assessing any unlawful activity of any association, declared unlawful activities prevention Act after the notification by which it has been so declared has become affective under sub-section 3 of that section.” 9. In S.T.(WT/A) 68 of 2003, petitioner Sri Ranjit Debbarma faced trial for the charges framed against him under Section 148 of the IPC read with Section 396, 307 read with Section 149, Section 27(1) and (2) read with Section 149, Section 427 IPC read with Section 149 and Section 120(B) of the IPC. Trial was completed and evidence was led. In S.T.(WT/A) 68 of 2003, petitioner Sri Ranjit Debbarma faced trial for the charges framed against him under Section 148 of the IPC read with Section 396, 307 read with Section 149, Section 27(1) and (2) read with Section 149, Section 427 IPC read with Section 149 and Section 120(B) of the IPC. Trial was completed and evidence was led. Thereafter, the statements of the accused-petitioner Sri Ranjit Debbarma was recorded on 15.09.2015 and the case was adjourned to 29.09.2015 for hearing arguments and furnishing of bail bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. On this date i.e. 29.09.2015, after trial had been completed the prosecution filed a supplementary charge sheet and on the basis of the supplementary charge sheet the following charges have been framed against the accused:- “Firstly, that you at any time during the year 1990 to 1992 and thereafter at your secret Safe house hatched a conspiracy with other banned extremist organization leaders like ULFA, NSCN etc. for recruitment of new Members to ATTF, Group and to fetch arms and ammunition by illegal means, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 120B of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court; Secondly, that you at any time during the year 1990 to 1992 and thereafter in the safe house at Bangladesh abated the waging of war against the Government of India by agreeing to do illegal act of recruitment of new members for the banned ATTF out fit and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 121 of the IPC and within the cognizance of this court. Thirdly, that you at any time during the year 1990 to 1992 and thereafter at your safe house in Bangladesh to wage war against the Union Government of India by conspiring to recruit new members for the banned ATTF (All Tripura Tribal Force subsequently renamed as All Tripura Tiger Force) organization and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 121A of IPC and within the cognizance of this court; Fourthly, that you at any time during the year 1990 to 1992 and thereafter prior to your arrest you collected money for the banned organization i.e. ATTF in order to procure arms and ammunitions with the intention of waging war against the Government of India and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 122 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court; Fifthly that you Ranjit Debbarma on or before your arrest in the State of Tripura in writing acted through so called unity declaration of the (i) Union of Seven Sisters of South East Asia (USSA) dated dated 10th March, 1999 being signed by the leaders of banned organization such as NSCN, ULFA, TPDF, UNLF, (ii) the Constitution of All Tripura Tiger Force 1402 TE and (iii) in the ATTF mouth speech namely “Couba” to promote feeling of enmity between Bengali and Tribal community prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different community and which disturbed or was liking to disturb public tranquility in the State of Tripura and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 153A of IPC and within my cognizance; Sixthly, That you prior to your arrest i.e. on 23.01.2013 you were the self styled President of ATTF/TPDF Organization an unlawful organization as promulgated by a Notification dated 3rd October, 1999 & renew on 3/10/2013 by the Government of India under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and also took part in the meeting of such Organization at any time from 1990 and prior to your arrest at safe house in Bangladesh and different places and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 10 of the U.L.(P) Act; Seventh, That you by way of taking part in the ATTF & TPDF Organization at any time during the year 1990 to till your arrest and assisted in the unlawful activities by way of recruiting new members for the said organization and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 13 of the U.L.(P) Act and within the cognizance of this court;” 10. The moot question is whether the charges could have been framed at this stage after trial was complete and secondly, whether these could be said to be supplementary charges in the present case. As far as the first question is concerned, I am not proceeding to decide that in the present case and if for the sake of deciding the case it is assumed that the charges could have been framed even after the trial was virtually over, but supplementary charges by this very name have to be charges which are supplemental to the main charge. They cannot be an independent case. If, the accused person has committed some other distinct offence, a separate charge sheet can be filed against him but there cannot be a separate supplementary charge sheet which has no connection with the previous charge sheet. When we read the two charge sheets framed in ST (WT/A) 68 of 2003, the first one on 30.04.2015 and the second one on 29.09.2015, it is apparent that there is no connection between the two. The charges framed on the second occasion on 29.09.2015 are totally separate from the charges framed earlier and therefore, they could not be part of a supplementary charge sheet. 11. Moreover, in the present case, as far as the matters relating to the second set of charges are concerned, they are covered by Case No. FIR 38 of 1998 which is pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5 i.e. S.T. 162 of 2013. In that case, charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed, relevant portion of which has been extracted hereinabove. The first five charges are identical to the charges which have been levelled in S.T. 162 of 2013. The 6th and 7th charges are general charges relating to the period prior to the arrest. These two charges are connected with the other five charges which are part of S.T. 162 of 2013. In case, any supplementary charge sheet has to be filed in respect to the last 6th and 7th charges that can be filed in S.T. 162 of 2013. It would be pertinent to mention that in fact, even in S.T. 162 of 2013 the petitioner has been charged with offences under Section 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It would be pertinent to mention that in fact, even in S.T. 162 of 2013 the petitioner has been charged with offences under Section 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. At best supplementary charge could be filed with regard to new material which may have come to the knowledge of the police. In S.T. 162 of 2013, neither charge has been framed nor trial has commenced till date. Therefore, the prosecution, if it so desires, may file supplementary material or charge sheet in that case. 12. However, the petitioner cannot be made to face two trials for the same offence. There cannot be two separate trials in respect of the same offence. This would be violative of one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 20 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows:- “20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.- (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” Sub-Section 20(2) embodies the principle of double jeopardy and clearly lays down that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. 13. The offences which are subject matter of the impugned charge sheet dated 29.09.2015 are totally covered by FIR No. 38 of 1998, which relates to S.T. 162 of 2015. 14. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The supplementary charges framed against the petitioner in S.T. 68 of 2003 are quashed and set aside. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the main Sessions Trial on the basis of the evidence already collected. However, it is made clear that if the prosecution so desires, it may file any material which has been subsequently collected by way of supplementary charge sheet in S.T. 162 of 2013. 15. Send back the LCRs forthwith.