High Court Of Tripura vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 373 Tri

                             Page 1 of 4




                HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       AGARTALA
                   Crl. A(J) 42/2020
Sri Jagat Gour,
son of Fagu Gour, resident of Jamuna Basti, Champahaur,
P.S. Champahaur, District- Khowai, Tripura
                                               ----Appellant
             Versus
The State of Tripura                                      ----Respondent
For the Appellant(s) :           Mr. A. Acharjee, Legal Aid Counsel
For the Respondent(s):           Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. PP
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment & Order :      19.03.2021
Whether fit for reporting:       Yes / No

              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
                             JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned legal Aid Counsel appearing for the

appellant as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional PP appearing for the

respondent-State.

2. The convict appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2020 passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai, Tripura, in connection with case No.

S.T. (Type-1) 22 of 2019 wherein the appellant was convicted under Section

304 (Part II) of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for 8(eight) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.

3. Briefly stated, one Chinta Moni Gour, the wife of the deceased lodged

a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Champahaur police station

stating inter alia that on 29.01.2019 when she was quarreling with her

husband, Kabiraj Gour, in the house of Jagat Gour, the accused-appellant

herein, he tried to resist her husband but, as her husband continued to quarrel

with her, he gave a blow with a aluminum pan (kadai) on his head. Kabiraj

Gour sustained severe injury and was shifted to Khowai hospital and, on

31.01.2019 Kabiraj Gour succumbed to his injuries.

4. Accordingly, FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out. Being

satisfied with the evidence surfaced, charge-sheet was submitted against the

accused, Jagat Gour under Section 302 IPC. Being committed, charge was

framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC. During trial, prosecution

examined 17 witnesses. At the closure of recording evidence, the accused

was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. when he denied all the

incriminating materials in prosecution evidence and also declined to adduce

evidence in his defence.

5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned

Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him under Section

302(Part-II) of the IPC, as aforestated. Hence, the appellant has preferred

this appeal.

6. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel at the very outset of his argument has

drawn my attention that the very basis of conviction was the evidence of

PW-12, Smt. Chintamoni Gour, wife of the deceased.

7. In view of this submission, I have gone through the evidence of PW-

12, who deposed that about one year back oneday, she had a quarrel with her

husband in the morning in the house of one Jagat Gour. At that time her

husband attacked her with a lathi in his hand. Jagat Gour tried to save her

from the attack of her husband but, her husband was adamant and out of that

incident suddenly Jagat Gour by taking an aluminum pan (kadai) assaulted

her husband on his forehead. After that incident her husband was firstly

taken to Khowai hospital and, subsequently he had succumbed to his

injuries.

8. Next, I have perused the evidence of Dr. John Debbarma who

adduced as PW-16. In his evidence, he deposed that the blow which was

given to the forehead of the deceased resulted the death of the husband of

the complainant. The aluminum pan (kadai) was also seized and it has been

taken into evidence as Exhibit-1.

9. Having gone through the evidence of PW-12, in my opinion, the

injury that was suffered by the deceased was supported by the statement of

the doctor (PW-16). The weapon of offence has also been seized. There is no

reason to disbelieve PW-12, the wife who is the eye witness to the incident.

Though the charge was framed under section 302 IPC, considering the

nature of offence, the learned trial court has converted the conviction and

sentence under Section 302 Part II IPC and imposed 8 years of rigorous

imprisonment upon the accused-appellant.

10. I have reconsidered the issue of sentence. The intention of the

accused-appellant was to save Smt. Chitamoni Gour, the wife of the victim

from the attack of her husband. He had no intention to kill the husband of

PW-12.

11. Considering the factum of the incident, in my opinion, the period of

imprisonment should be reduced further. Accordingly, I reduce the sentence

and declare that the convict appellant shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for

3 (three) years instead of 8 (eight) years, which, according to me, would be

just and reasonable. It is made clear that the period of imprisonment the

appellant has already undergone will be included with the total period of

sentence of 3(three) years. The appellant has been under imprisonment with

effect from the date of judgment. As such, he is to undergo remaining period

of sentence.

12. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed in part in the above terms. The

fine amount, as decided, by the learned trial court has not been interfered

with.

Send down the LCRs.

JUDGE

Saikat