Sri Ratush Nath @ Rakesh vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 194 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 6




                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A

                       Crl. Rev. P. No. 83 of 2016

      Sri Ratush Nath @ Rakesh, son of late Ram Chandra Nath of
      Chamtilla (Panisagar), P.O. Roa, P.S. Panisagar, District: North
      Tripura.

                                                          .....Petitioner

                                -V E R S U S-

      The State of Tripura.

                                                       ..... Respondent.

B_E_F_O_R_E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. B. Deb, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

Date of hearing
and delivery of
judgment and order          :      18.02.2021
Whether fit for reporting   :      NO


                   JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]

Heard Mr. S. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the convict-petitioner also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.

[2] The present petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2015 whereby and whereunder, the convict-petitioner has been sentenced to

suffer RI for 3 (three) years with fine of Rs. 10,000 for committing offence under Section-498A of IPC and to suffer further RI for 7(seven) years along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- for committing offence under Section-307 of IPC with default stipulations.

[3] The prosecution case as projected by the learned trial court is as under:

"[4] The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Smt. Minati Nath lodged a written complaint in the court of Ld. Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Dharmanagar on 16-03- 2013 alleging, inter alia, that her daughter Sharmila was married to the accused-appellant according to the shastric rites of Hindu marriage about 6 years back and after marriage she started living with her husband at his home. Few months after the marriage, her husband started coercing her for dowry and she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband for fulfillment of his demand. In the midst of such discord a son was born to them. Even after the birth of the son, the accused-appellant did not refrain from harassing his wife for dowry. Lastly, on 28-02-2013 during the night the accused-appellant along with his relatives brutally assaulted his wife Sharmila and set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil over her body. Following her cry people from the neighbourhood appeared and extinguished her fire. But she received severe burn injury. The neighbouring people shifted her to hospital. Initially she was admitted in Jalebasa Primary Health Center from where she was taken to Dharmanagar hospital. From there she was referred to Kailashahar District Hospital and lastly she was taken to Agartala Govt. Medical College & Hospital at Agartala. While she was undergoing treatment at Agartala informant mother of the victim lodged this complaint in court. Ld. SDJM, Dharmanagar forwarded the complaint to the officer- in-charge of Panisagar police station for investigation.

[5] The Officer-in-Charge of Panisagar police station received the complaint from the court and registered Panisagar PS case no. 17 of 2013 under section 498 A and 307 read with section 34 IPC against accused-appellant Ratush Nath @ Rakesh, his brother Ranu Nath and his wife

Pinki Nath and entrusted its investigation to Sri Nanda Dulal Saha, SI of police. After investigation police submitted charge sheet against the appellant, his brother Ranu Nath and his wife Pinki Nath for committing offence punishable under sections 498 A and 307 read with section 34 IPC.

[6] The Ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dharmanagar received the charge sheet and took cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 498 A & 307 read with section 34 IPC and the case being exclusively triable by the court of sessions committed the case to the court of sessions. The case was then transferred to the court of Ld. Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar from this court for trial according to law.

[7] The Ld. Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar framed charges of offence punishable under sections 498 A and 307 read with section 34 IPC against the accused-appellant, his brother Ranu Nath and his wife Pinki Nath. All accused pleaded not guilty and desired to stand the trial.

[8] During trial prosecution altogether examined 10 witnesses including the victim and her mother. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the Ld. Trial court examined the accused persons under section 313, Cr.PC. All accused abjured their guilt and claimed that the charges were foisted on them. They declined to adduce any witness on their defence.

[9] On culmination of trial, the Ld. Trial court announced judgment and order of conviction and sentence whereby the accused-appellant was sentenced to RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to RI for 3 months for offence punishable under section 498 A IPC and he was sentenced to RI for 6 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default to RI for 6 months for offence punishable under section 307 IPC and both the sentences were to run concurrently. The other 2 accused namely Ranu Nath and his wife Pinki Nath were found not guilty and they were acquitted of the charges. Aggrieved with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict-appellant has preferred this appeal."

[4] Being endorsed with the case, investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer (I.O. for short). In the process, the I.O. had

recorded the statements of the available witnesses. Having satisfied with the investigation, the I.O. had filed charge-sheet against the accused- petitioner. After commitment, the learned Sessions Judge had framed charge against the accused-petitioner under Section-498A and Section- 307 of IPC.

[5] At the closer of recording evidence, the accused-petitioner was examined under Section-313 of Cr. P.C. where he was noticed about the incriminating materials as surfaced from the prosecution witnesses to which he denied all the statements of the prosecution witnesses, but, had denied to adduce evidence on his behalf. The learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments of the parties and found the accused-petitioner as guilty of committing offence as aforestated.

[6] The learned Sessions Judge accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to suffer RI for 3[three] years for committing offence under Section-498A of IPC and further to suffer RI for 7[seven] years for committing offence under Section-307 of IPC.

[7] Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict-petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition before this Court. I have perused the evidence on record and also heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

[8] Having scrutinized the evidence and materials on record, in my opinion, there is enough room to hold that the conviction of the accused-petitioner is sustainable but, considering the nature of injuries, the sentence of suffering RI for 7[seven] years under Section-307 of IPC appears to be disproportionate and thus, should be reduced. Accordingly,

the conviction of the petitioner is upheld and affirmed as declared by the learned Sessions Judge but, the sentence to suffer RI for 7[seven] years for committing offence under Section-307 of IPC is interfered with. As such, the sentence is, accordingly reduced and is hereby modified to suffer RI for 4[four] years for the offence under Section-307 of IPC. The conviction and sentence as returned by the learned Sessions Judge under Section-498A of IPC and the fine money with default stipulation shall remain un-interfered. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, in the above terms.

[9] It is informed that the convict-petitioner is on bail. It is directed that the convict-petitioner shall surrender to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar on 25th February, 2021 to suffer the remaining period of sentence. The bail bond is deemed to be cancelled on and from 24th February, 2021.

[10] It is made clear that if the convict-petitioner fails to surrender as directed by this Court, then, the learned Sessions Judge will proceed in accordance with law to ensure him to suffer the remaining period of sentence. It is also informed to this Court that the petitioner has already suffered RI for 3 years 4 months and 15 days, this period of imprisonment which the convict-petitioner had already suffered shall stand set off.

[11] Mr. Deb, learned counsel has conducted the case as Legal Aid counsel and he has no means to communicate the present judgment and order to the convict-petitioner. As such, the Registry is directed to inform the Officer In-charge, Panisagar P.S. to apprise the convict- petitioner about the present judgment and order passed by this Court

today and ensure his appearance before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar on 25th of February, 2021.

[12] Registry is further directed to send a copy of this judgment and order to the Officer In-charge of the Panisagar P.S. by tomorrow i.e. by 19th February, 2021. A copy of this judgment and order be furnished to Mr. S. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the convict-petitioner.

JUDGE

A.Ghosh