Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 203 (TRI)

Swapan Das v. State of Tripura

2022-04-19

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal revision arises from the judgment and order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge of Khowai Judicial District in Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2019 affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under sections 323, 506 and 341 IPC awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khowai by his judgment and order dated 02.07.2019 passed in case No.PRC (WP) No.55 of 2018. 2. The prosecution case germinated from the FIR lodged by Smt. Rina Das [PW-1] of Teliamura with the officer in charge of Teliamura police station on 09.12.2017 at 09.45 pm. The informant alleged in her written FIR that on 08.12.2017 at about 06.30 am she was returning home after purchasing some goods from the shop of Swadesh Das in her village. At that time, the accused petitioner stood on her way. He caught hold of her hair and dragged her to the courtyard of his house where he tied her hair with a wooden pillar. Then he brought a dao (a sharp cutting weapon) and terrorizezed the informant. The informant raised hue and cry to save her life. The neighbouring people rescued her and brought her to Teliamura hospital. After returning from hospital, she lodged the FIR. 3. Based on her FIR, Teliamura PS case No.2017 TLM 0087 under sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC was registered and case was taken up for investigation. 4. The investigating officer examined and recorded the statements of the victim and other available witnesses, prepared hand sketch map of the place of occurrence, collected injury report of the victim and on conclusion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused for committing offence punishable under sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC. 5. It would appear from the trial courts' record that in order to bring home the charge against the petitioner, prosecution examined eight witnesses in all. Among them, PW-1 is the victim who lodged the FIR, PW-2 is her neighbour, PW-3 is her husband, PW-4 and PW-5 are also neighbours of the victim. PW-6 is the medical officer who attended the victim after she was taken to hospital on the date of occurrence. PW-7 is the investigating officer and PW-8 is the scribe of the FIR. 6. After the recording of prosecution evidence was closed, trial court examined the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. He abjured his guilt and claimed that the charges were foisted on him. PW-7 is the investigating officer and PW-8 is the scribe of the FIR. 6. After the recording of prosecution evidence was closed, trial court examined the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. He abjured his guilt and claimed that the charges were foisted on him. He declined to adduce any evidence on his defence. 7. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court held the petitioner guilty and after conviction, sentenced him to RI for six months with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under section 323 IPC. He was also separately sentenced to RI for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for committing offence punishable under section 506 IPC and he was further sentenced to RI for one month and fine of Rs.500/- under section 341 IPC. It was ordered by the learned trial Judge that the sentences imposed on the petitioner would run concurrently. 8. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge elaborately discussed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that during trial the charges were proved against the petitioner. It was viewed by the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of the victim was corroborated by evidence of eye witnesses and there was no scope to doubt their evidence. Learned Sessions Judge, therefore, upheld the conviction of the petitioner. With regard to sentence, the learned Sessions Judge held that in view of the ghastly manner in which the offence was committed, the accused was not entitled to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Sessions Judge viewed that the sentence imposed by the trial court did not call for any intervention in appeal. The sentence of the petitioner was, therefore, affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge which is under challenge before this Court. 9. Heard Mr. J. Bhattacharjee. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Mr. Sajib Ghosh, learned advocate. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P representing the State respondent. 10. The petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the following grounds: (i) The learned Sessions Judge did not take into consideration the discrepancies appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses on material issues. (ii) Learned Sessions Judge did not consider the fact that the petitioner was a next door neighbour of the victim and conviction and sentence of the petitioner would spoil their relationship forever. (ii) Learned Sessions Judge did not consider the fact that the petitioner was a next door neighbour of the victim and conviction and sentence of the petitioner would spoil their relationship forever. (iii) The learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner did not have any criminal antecedent and therefore there was no embargo for his release under the Probation of Offenders Act. 11. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has contended that the victim implicated the petitioner in a false case because of her animosity towards him. Counsel contended that PW-2, in her cross examination, categorically stated that day before the occurrence, victim quarreled with the wife of the petitioner and she abused the wife of the petitioner with filthy words. According to learned counsel, the trial court as well as the learned Sessions Judge should have taken into consideration the strained relationship between the parties to appreciate the evidence from the right perspective. Counsel has contended that this is a fit case for releasing the petitioner on probation of good conduct in case his conviction is upheld by this Court. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, therefore, urges the Court to provide the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner in case his conviction is upheld. 12. Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P vehemently opposes the contention of the counsel of the petitioner. It is contended by Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. that in the present case, the petitioner has committed a dastardly act of violence on a hapless woman and the conduct of the accused and the manner in which he committed the offence did not inspire the trial court as well as the appellate court to release the petitioner on probation of good conduct. Counsel contends that the impugned judgment is founded on sound evidence and reasoning and therefore it does not call for any interference in revision. Learned Addl. P.P, therefore, urges the Court to dismiss the petition. 13. In the course of their arguments, learned counsel of the parties had also taken the Court to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 14. PW-1 is the victim who supported her FIR case in her testimony before the court. She categorically asserted that she was attacked by the accused on her way back home from the grocery shop of Swadesh in her village. 14. PW-1 is the victim who supported her FIR case in her testimony before the court. She categorically asserted that she was attacked by the accused on her way back home from the grocery shop of Swadesh in her village. On the road, accused caught hold of her hair and grounded her and thereafter he dragged her to the courtyard of his house where he tied her hair with a pillar of her house and called someone to bring a dao. The hapless victim begged of her life and started crying. At that time some of his neighbours appeared. With their help, she could free herself. Accused tried to impeach her evidence by cross examining her. But, her evidence could not be embellished to any extent by such cross examination. 15.Smt. Dipti Das [PW-2], a neighbour of the victim also supported her. The PW is an eye witness to the occurrence. She heard the victim crying 'bachao bachao' (save me, save me). Immediately, she came out of her house and saw the accused dragging her by catching hold of her hair. The victim was begging of her life. The PW also tried to save her but the violent accused tied the hair of the victim with a pillar in his house and brought a dao. Some more neighbours also came to the place of occurrence by that time. With their help, the victim could free her hair from the pillar. 16. Sri Sudip Das [PW-3] stated that he saw his wife running out of the house of the petitioner. The PW also saw the accused standing with a dao in his courtyard. His wife then told the PW that when she was returning home from the grocery shop of Swadesh after purchasing some goods, accused caught hold of her and dragged her to his house where he tied her hair with a pillar in his house. 17. Smt. Basana Das [PW-4] and Smt. Saraswati Das [PW-5], both neighbours of the victim are also eye witnesses who saw the accused dragging the PW to his house by catching hold of her hair and tying her hair with a pillar in his house. 18. Dr. Surajit Das [PW-6] attended the victim in Teliamura Sub-Divisional Hospital on the date of occurrence and found contusion over the left middle finger of the victim which according to the medical officer was caused by blunt object. 18. Dr. Surajit Das [PW-6] attended the victim in Teliamura Sub-Divisional Hospital on the date of occurrence and found contusion over the left middle finger of the victim which according to the medical officer was caused by blunt object. 19. Sri Shyamal Debanth [PW-7] is the investigating officer who told the trial court that having found sufficient materials against the accused in support of the charges brought against him, he submitted charge sheet against the accused. 20. Sri Ashish Chowdhury [PW-8] is the scribe who proved the written FIR lodged by the victim and told the court that the FIR was written following the dictation of the victim and the victim signed the FIR admitting the correctness of its content. 21. Evidence recorded at the trial court clearly indicates that the evidence of the victim has been corroborated by the eye witness version of the disinterested witnesses. Each of those witnesses were subjected to cross examination. Even after an incisive cross examination, their evidence remained unimpeached. It has been proved beyond doubt that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the victim by wrongfully restraining her movements and he also criminally intimidated and terrorized her. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner under sections 323, 341 and 506 IPC does not warrant any interference in revision. 22. Evidently, the accused had committed the offence in a dastardly manner. He dragged the woman to his house by catching hold of her hair and tied her with a pillar in his house. The learned trial court as well as the appellate court correctly held that in the given fact situation, accused does not deserve release on probation of good conduct. 23. The sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is found absolutely proportionate to the offence committed by the petitioner. Only the sentence imposed under section 341 IPC required slight modification because section 341 prescribes simple imprisonment whereas the petitioner has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under section 341 IPC. Therefore, the sentence for offence under section 341 IPC is modified as simple imprisonment instead of rigorous imprisonment. With such modification, the sentence is affirmed. 24. In view of what is discussed above, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as of the appellate court. Resultantly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. With such modification, the sentence is affirmed. 24. In view of what is discussed above, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as of the appellate court. Resultantly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. 25. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court (the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khowai Judicial District) within a period of one month from today to suffer the sentence failing which the trial court shall compel his appearance before the court by issuing appropriate process and commit him to prison to suffer the sentence. 26. In terms of the above, the criminal revision petition stands disposed of. Send down the LCR. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.