Shri Pradip Sukladas vs The State Of Tripura Represented ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 269 Tri

                                      Page 1 of 9



                          HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                              CRL A No.37 of 2019
Shri Pradip Sukladas, S/o. late Gopal Sukladas, resident of Santinagar,
Baraiguta, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- Khowai Tripura.
                                      .........Defecto-Complainant-Appellant(s)
                                       Versus
1. The State of Tripura represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Tripura, Agartala, Tripura, West.
2. Shri Indrajit Sukladas, S/o. Shri Nimai Sukladas, resident of
Santinagar, Baraiguta, P.S. Kalyanpur, District- Khowai Tripura.
                                                          ......Respondent(s)

_B_E_F_O_R_E_ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH For Appellant(s) : Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, Advocate,

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

Judgment & Order
delivered on                  :       3rd March, 2021.

Whether fit for reporting :           NO.

                         JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

(Akil   Kureshi, CJ)

This appeal is filed by the defecto complainant, a relative

of the deceased. He has challenged the judgment of the learned Sessions

Judge, Khowai Tripura in Case No. S.T (T-1) 07 of 2017.

[2] Briefly stated the prosecution version was that on

12.09.2015 at about 2230 hours accused Indrajit Sukla Das and Prasenjit

Sukla Das had a quarrel. The accused first gave a stick blow to Prasenjit

upon which he fell down. People from the neighbourhood arrived and

prevented any further harm being done to Prasenjit. The accused went

away and returned some 15 to 20 minutes later and gave a knife blow to

Prasenjit on his back causing serious stab injury. The accused ran away.

Prasenjit was shifted to a hospital where the doctor declared him dead.

The accused was charged with offence punishable under Section 302 of

IPC. The prosecution examined several witnesses including eye

witnesses and the medical experts. The learned Judge substantially

believed the incident as projected by the prosecution and came to the

conclusion that the accused was guilty of giving a knife blow to the

deceased on his back. However, learned Judge was of the opinion that

this was not a case which would fall under Section 302 of IPC, instead it

would fall under Section 304 Part-I. Resultantly, the learned Judge

convicted the accused for offence under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. Fine of

Rs.5,000/- was also imposed. Since the accused was acquitted for

offence under Section 302 of IPC, this appeal has been filed by the

defecto complainant, though the State has not preferred appeal. Mr. S.

Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that the accused

has also not preferred appeal against his conviction and sentence.

[3] Since the accused though served, has not been represented,

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged us to assign an advocate

from the legal aid panel or to appoint an Amicus to represent the

accused. Ordinarily, the course suggested by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor would be the correct one and we would have

definitely accepted his suggestion. In any case, we would not have

proceeded to allow the appeal without full and effective representation

by the accused. However, our initial gathering of facts on record

suggested that it may be possible to decide the appeal in absence of the

accused. We have accordingly heard Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State. Upon culmination of such hearing, we have

come to the conclusion that this is not a case where the conviction of the

accused should be converted from one recorded by the learned Sessions

Judge under Section 304 Part-1 of IPC to Section 302 thereof. We

would shortly record our reasons for this conclusion.

[4] For the present, we may refer in brief to the evidence on

record. Pradip Sukla Das, P.W.2 was an eye witness and the first

informant. He deposed that the deceased was his nephew. On the night

of 12.09.2015 at about 10.30 p.m he was in his house when he suddenly

heard noises and rushed to a nearby Anganwadi Centre where several

people had gathered. He noticed that altercation was going on between

the accused and the deceased. He and other villagers intervened. By this

time, the accused had taken a stick and given a blow on the head of the

deceased. After the two were separated, the accused went to his house.

Prasenjit had fallen down on the ground. They poured water on his head.

Some 15 to 20 minutes later the accused came back to the place with a

dagger and stabbed Prasanjit on the back. He then left the dagger and

ran away. Prasenjit was bleeding. He and other villagers shifted him to a

nearby hospital where the doctor declared him dead.

[5] Krishna Sukla Das, P.W.3 was also an eye witness. He

deposed that upon hearing the noises he went to the Anganwadi centre

near his house and found large number of people had gathered there. He

saw that scuffle was going on between the accused and the deceased.

Indrajit was sent back to his house from where he returned after a short

while with a dagger and stabbed Prasenjit on the backside.

[6] Evidence of P.W.4 Pradip Sukla Das is also along with

similar lines. It is, therefore, not necessary to separately record his

version. So is the case with Smt. Sibani Sukla Das, P.W.7.

[7] Dr. Arnab Debbarma, P.W.13 was member of a panel of

doctors who had carried out the postmortem. He produced the PM report

dated 13.09.2015 in which he had recorded one spindle shaped wound at

the level of 3 cm below C-7 vertebra of a length of 5 cm and depth of 15

cm. In his opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock and the

probable weapon used was a double edged sharp instrument. The dagger

which according to the prosecution was used by the accused for

commission of the offence was shown to him. He agreed that the same

could have caused the injury noticed in the PM report. In his deposition

also he had referred to one spindle shaped wound. Correlating to this

wound he had also referred to a broken vertebra.

[8] On the basis of such evidence, the learned Sessions Judge

convicted the accused for causing death of Prasenjit. However he was of

the opinion that this was not a case of premeditated murder committed

with acts of cruelty. He also believed that the accused had acted upon a

sudden quarrel and inter alia on such grounds he convicted the accused

under Section 304 Part-I of IPC.

[9] Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant submitted that it is a clear case of premeditated action which

can be gathered from the fact that even after being separated by the

villagers the accused went home, returned 15 to 20 minutes later with a

dagger and gave a blow on the vital part of the body which was

sufficient to cause death. The learned Judge, therefore, has committed a

serious error in acquitting the accused for offence under Section 302 of

IPC.

[10] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also made

submissions about the nature of evidence and the conclusions of the

learned Sessions Judge.

[11] The involvement of the accused in causing the injury which

led to the death of deceased Indrajit is fully established. It is not a matter

of any doubt or debate, nor even seriously questioned by the accused.

There were several eye witnesses who had seen the accused and the

deceased quarrel. After they were separated by the villagers the accused

went home and returned sometime later with a sharp edged weapon and

immediately gave one blow to the deceased. This part of the eye witness

account is corroborated by the medical evidence also. P.W.13, the

doctor had recorded stab injury on the back in the postmortem report. In

his deposition also he had pointed out that such injury could be caused

by the murder weapon recovered by the police. In his opinion, the death

was due to hemorrhagic shock. He was neither asked nor clarified on his

own that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death.

[12] There is no evidence of the accused giving a stick blow on

the head of the deceased before the villagers intervened and separated

the two. Though some of the eye witnesses have referred to this, we find

no corresponding injury on any part of the body in the postmortem

report. Even if therefore we accept the proposition that the ocular

evidence should not be discarded on account of inconsistency with the

expert's opinion, it can be safely presumed that any such blow was not

given with any degree of severity. Barring this minor inconsistency in

the prosecution version, there is no reason to discard the consistent eye

witness accounts of multiple witnesses. In short thus it is duly

established that after some brawl with the deceased, the accused went

home, returned a few minutes later with a dagger and gave one blow to

the accused on his back.

[13] As per Section 300 of IPC except in cases which are

accepted in the said provision, a culpable homicide would amount to

murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention

of causing death. On the other hand, as per part I of Section 304 of IPC,

a person who commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder

would be punished with imprisonment of life or imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to ten years, and fine, if the act

by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death,

or with such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Part-II of Section

304 of IPC provides for imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is

done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any

intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to

cause death.

[14] With this statutory framework in mind we may revert back

to the facts which are proved on record. What emerges from the proved

facts is that on the date of incident after being separated by the villagers

the accused returned and gave one knife blow to the deceased on the

back. Firstly, this is a case of single blow. Though not decisive, it is

always a relevant factor while judging the intention of the accused.

Secondly, the blow is given on the back which cannot be stated to be the

vital part of the body. Thirdly, there is nothing on record to suggest that

the accused could not have, if he so desired, given multiple blows to the

deceased. These factors namely giving the blow on a non-vital part of

the body and stopping at one blow would convince us that the accused

did not intend to cause death. Of course he ought to have known the

consequences of his action and realized that the injury which he is

causing, is likely to cause death. The knowledge that such injury may

lead to death, is not the same thing as an intention to cause death by

causing such injury. This vital distinction between knowledge and

intention would certainly take the case of the accused outside of the

purview of Section 302 of IPC.

[15] Under the circumstances, for the reasons slightly different

from those recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, we do not find that

this is a case where any interference is needed. Perhaps it was open for

the convict to argue that the case would fall under Part-II of Section 304

of IPC and not Part-I. However, when the sentence awarded by the

learned Sessions Judge is within the limits of Section 304 Part-II of IPC

also, we need not deliberate further on this aspect.

[16] In the result, appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if

any, also stands disposed of.

 (ARINDAM LODH), J                               (AKIL KURESHI), CJ




Dipesh