Tripura High Court
Subhash Das vs The State Of Tripura on 17 February, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Rev. P. No.67 of 2017
Subhash Das
Village : Chandipur
P.O. : Kailashahar
District : Unakoti, Tripura
......................Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura ...................Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) :Ms. A.Debbarma, Legal Aid Counsel.
Mr. Jhon Debbarma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) :Mr.S.Ghosh, Addl.PP.
Date of hearing : 22.01.2021
Date of delivery of
Judgment and order : 17.02.2021
Whether fit : Yes No.
for reporting
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY
JUDGMENT
[1] This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed
challenging the judgment dated 12.01.2017 delivered by
the Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar
in Criminal. Appeal No. 07(2) of 2016, affirming the
conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section
326, IPC passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Unakoti
Judicial District in case No.PRC (WP) 87 of 2015 convicting
the petitioner and sentencing him to Rigorous
Imprisonment (RI) for 5 years and fine of ₹ 3000/- with
default stipulation for commission of offence punishable
under Section 326, IPC by judgment and order dated
23.05.2016.
[2] Brief facts of the case are as under:
Smt. Laxmi Rani Das wife of Sri Tapan Das of
Chandipur, Kailashahar lodged a written complaint with
the Officer-in-charge of Kailashahar police station on
09.07.2015 alleging, inter alia, that her father Subhash
Das assaulted her mother Smt. Sabita Das with an axe at
about 9.30 p.m on 26.06.2015 following a quarrel between
them as a result of which her mother received bleeding
injury in her head. Immediately, she had taken her injured
mother to RGM hospital at Kailashahar from where she
was brought to GBP Hospital at Agartala during the same
night.
[3] Based on her FIR Kailashahar P.S. Case
No.2015 KLS032 dated 09.07.2015 under Section 326 IPC
was registered and the case was endorsed to Shri
Buddhiram Debbarma, Sub-inspector of Police for
investigation. During investigation Shri Buddhiram
Debbarma [PW-1], IO of the case, met the material
witnesses of the case and recorded their statements after
examining them under Section 161 Cr.P.C. His
investigation revealed that the petitioner and his wife
started quarreling at around 9.30 p.m. on 26.06.2015 and
following such quarrel he hit his wife with an axe on her
head. As a result, she received deep cut injury on her
scalp which was supported by Dr. Sujit Chakma, [PW-4]
who stated in his report [Exbt.5] that the injury was so
deep that the brain materials were visible through the
injury. The IO had also drawn up hand sketch map of the
crime scene with separate index indicating the material
locations at the PO and after collection of injury report
submitted charge sheet No.30 of 2015 dated 30.07.2015
against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable
under Section 326 IPC.
[4] The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate received
the charge sheet and took cognizance of offence
punishable under Section 326 IPC. The trial commenced
against the accused with framing of charge under Section
326 IPC. The charge framed by the learned trial court
reads as under:
"That on 26.06.2015 at about 2130 hours at
Chandipur upon a quarrel with your wife Smt. Sabita Das you
assaulted her on her head by an axe, which is an instrument of
cutting voluntarily causing grievous hurt to her person and
thereby committed offence punishable US 326 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, and within my cognizance.
I do hereby direct that you be tried on the aforesaid
charge."
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge
and claimed trial.
[5] During trial as many as 10 prosecution
witnesses including the informant, Smt. Laxmi Rani Das
[PW-10], her injured mother, Smt. Sabita Das[PW-5], her
brother Shri Ramkrishna Das[PW-6], the medical officer,
Dr. Sujit Chakma [PW-4] and the Investigating Officer,
Shri Buddhiram Debbarma[PW-1] were examined and 5
documents were introduced and marked as Exhibit-1 to
Exhibit-5/2.
[6] After the recording of prosecution evidence was
over, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., in short). In reply,
the accused pleaded innocence and claimed that the
charge was foisted on him. He declined to adduce any
evidence on his defence.
[7] At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court
on appreciation of evidence held the revision petitioner
guilty of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and
convicted him for the offence. After hearing him on the
question of sentence, the learned trial court by a separate
order dated 23.05.2016 sentenced him to RI for 5 years
and fine of ₹3000/- with default stipulation. The petitioner
challenged his conviction and sentence in appeal before
the Sessions Judge of Unakoti Judicial District who by the
impugned judgment dated 12.01.2017 upheld the
conviction and sentence of the petitioner without any
modification.
Hence this criminal revision petition.
[8] Heard Ms.A.Debbarma learned counsel
appointed as a legal aid counsel by the High Court Legal
Services Committee as well as Mr.Jhon Debbarma, learned
advocate for the revision petitioner. Heard Mr.S.Ghosh,
learned Addl. PP representing the State respondent.
[9] The main contentions of learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner are as follows:
(i)Since the hurt was allegedly caused by the
petitioner to his wife [PW-5] following a sudden quarrel
between them, charge should have been framed against
him under Section 335 IPC instead of 326 IPC.
(ii)The courts below did not take into
consideration that the petitioner did not attack his wife
with any premediation or intention to hurt her. Rather, the
conduct of the wife was so provocative that the petitioner
lost his control and hurt his wife.
(iii)The courts below did not also appreciate the
inconsistencies and infirmities appearing in the prosecution
evidence which has rendered their judgments erroneous
and unsustainable.
Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court for
acquitting the accused by setting aside the impugned
judgment.
[10] Mr. S.Ghosh, learned Addl. PP on the other
hand submits that the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses is so consistent, corroborative and coherent that
there is no scope to disbelieve their evidence. Learned
counsel submits that the courts below have made an in-
depth analysis of the evidence on record and held the
petitioner guilty of the offence and rightly convicted and
sentenced him. According to Mr.Ghosh learned Addl. PP,
the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of
evidence which does not call for any interference in
appeal. Learned counsel, therefore, urges for dismissal of
the petition.
[11] Among the witnesses examined in this case
PW-1 is the IO who has stated at the trial that the
statements of the witnesses recorded by him during his
investigation and other materials including the injury
report collected by him having supported the charge
against the accused he submitted charge sheet against
him.
[12] PW-2, Shri Babul Chandra Das, a neighbor of
the petitioner came out of his home following a noise from
the house of the petitioner at the material time and came
to know from the son of the petitioner that his father
assaulted his mother with an axe on her head. He saw the
injured wife of the petitioner being taken to hospital.
[13] PW-3, Ranendra Das, another neighbour of the
petitioner rushed to the house of the petitioner following a
hue and cry and saw that Ramkrishna Das, son of the
petitioner holding an axe in his hand and his mother was
bleeding from her head. Ramkrishna Das, PW-6, told him
that his father assaulted his mother with the axe. The
injured was then taken to hospital. In his cross
examination the PW stated that he did not see the
petitioner at the place of occurrence.
[14] Dr. Sujit Chakma [PW-4] examined the injured
in RGM hospital at Kailashahar on 26.06.2015 and found
the following injuries in her head:
Nature of Size of each On what Slight, By what Remarks
injury injury in inches part of the severe orkind of
whether a cut i.e. length, body dangerous weapon
or a braise or breadth and inflected inflected
a burn etc. depth
Cut injury (6 x 2 x 1)cm Mid of Brain
paricto- material
occipital was coming
out.
region of
head Grievous sharp Patient was
unconscious
(8 x 1 x 1)cm Right side
of paricto- Referred to
occipital AGMC on
region of 26.06.2015
head at 11 P.M.
During trial he supported injury report [Exbt.
5]prepared by him and stated that the patient was
unconscious at that time and at about 11 P.M. on
26.06.2015, she was referred to AGMC and GBP hospital
at Agartala. In cross examination he stated that such
injury could have been caused by any other sharp cutting
weapon like Dao.
[15] PW-5, Smt. Sabita Das, is the injured herself.
She stated at the trial that at the material time after she
came back from her daughter's house, her petitioner
husband gave her a tight slap as a result of which she
received severe pain in her head. She somehow came out
of her home and informed her son [PW-6] in his nearby
shop who advised her to leave for his sister's house
nearby. Then she along with her son came back to house
to take some clothes when her husband started beating
her with a wooden bar. As a result of which she was about
to lose her sense. He then took up an axe and gave a blow
on her head with the axe which made her lose her sense
completely. When she regained her sense she discovered
herself in GBP Hospital at Agartala.
[16] Son of the petitioner namely Ramkrishna Das
[PW-6] gave a detailed account of the incidence which
took place before his eyes. He was 17 years old at the
time of occurrence. The PW stated that on 26.06.2015 at 9
o'clock in the evening his mother came to him and told
him that his father slapped her on her ear as she left the
home for a while to visit her daughter nearby leaving the
homestead works unfinished. His mother then asked him
to take her to the house of his sister. Accordingly, he and
his mother came back home for taking some clothes of
her. Soon after they entered into their house, his father
gave a blow on the head of his mother with an axe. When
his father was going to give another blow on his mother,
he caught hold of the hand of his father as a result of
which, the blow missed his mother. His father then turned
towards him. The PW kept holding the hand of his father
and raised alarm. Following his cry the people from the
adjoining house appeared who had taken his mother to
Kailashahar hospital from where she was referred to AGMC
& GBP Hospital at Agartala. The PW identified the weapon
of offence during the trial of the case. His evidence could
not be shaken to any extent in his cross examination.
[17] PW-7, Smt. Rita Das Roy, a neighbor of the
petitioner rushed to the place of occurrence from her
adjoining house and saw the injured wife of the petitioner
and she came to know that the petitioner had given a blow
on her head with an axe and caused her injuries.
[18] PW-8, Smt. Namita Sarkar and PW-9, Sri Sajal
Deb were also the neighbours of the petitioner who had
seen the injured wife of the petitioner at his house
immediately after the occurrence and came to know that
she was assaulted by her husband with an axe which
resulted in her cut injuries on her scalp.
[19] PW-10, Smt. Laxmi Rani Das is the daughter of
the petitioner. She has also supported the prosecution
case against her father. She categorically stated that her
father assaulted her mother with an axe and caused
serious injuries in her head. She then, taken her mother
to hospital with the help of the neighbours who was first
treated in RGM hospital at Kailasahahar from where she
was referred to GBP hospital at Agartala
[20] The trial court having appreciated the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses particularly that of the eye
witnesses and injury report arrived at the conclusion that
the prosecution evidence unerringly pointed to the guilt of
the accused petitioner for which the petitioner was held
guilty and convicted and sentenced for the offence.
[21] In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge
reassessed the entire prosecution evidence and considered
the submissions of learned counsel representing the
parties and the attending facts and circumstances of the
case and came to the conclusion that the act of assault did
not result from any grave and sudden provocation. Having
appreciated the evidence of the injured wife[PW-5] of the
petitioner, the Sessions Judge viewed as under:
"12. ....... It appears from the evidence of PW
5 that following a quarrel the victim was first
given a tight slap to her ear by the convict-
appellant. Thereafter, when she came back
home with her son after a while, the victim
was again assaulted all over her body by the
convict appellant by a wooden bar and the
convict-appellant did not stop there and he
again assaulted the victim with axe on her
head. The manner in which the convict-
appellant assaulted the victim does not
suggest that he assaulted the victim in a
sudden rage, but the mindless acts of the
convict-appellant suggest that he assaulted
the victim wife mercilessly knowing the
consequence fully well. Therefore, I find no
force in the submission of the learned counsel
of the convict-appellant on this score."
[22] On an overall appreciation of evidence the
learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion of the guilt
of the petitioner and upheld his conviction and sentence
passed by the learned trial court without any modification.
[23] From the discussions made above, it can be
safely held that the impugned judgment is based on
proper appreciation of evidence and the facts and
circumstances of the case. In view of the evidence
recorded at the trial, no conclusion other than the guilt of
the accused could be arrived at by the learned trial court
as well as by the appellate court.
The criminal revision petition, therefore, lacks
merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
Resultantly, the revision petition stands
dismissed.
Send down the LCR.
JUDGE
Saikat Sarma, P.A
