Shri Swapan Das vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 457 Tri

                                             Page - 1 of 8

                                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                          AGARTALA

                                    Crl. Rev. P. No. 22 of 2020
Shri Swapan Das,
Son of late Harendra Das, resident of South Pulinpur, P.S. Teliamura, District
Khowai, Tripura.
                                                                            ----- Petitioner(s)
                                            Versus

The State of Tripura
(Represented by the Public Prosecutor), High Court of Tripura, Agartala
                                                                 -----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)                           :        Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
                                                     Mr. Sajib Ghosh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)                           :        Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
Date of Hearing                             :        10th November, 2021.
Date of Pronouncement                       :        19th April, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting                   :        NO

                                         B_E_F_O_R_E_
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                                       JUDGMENT & ORDER

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

Crl. Rev. P. No.22 of 2020 Page - 2 of 8

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

Crl. Rev. P. No.22 of 2020 Page - 3 of 8

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.

Crl. Rev. P. No.22 of 2020 Page - 4 of 8

[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.

(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

Crl. Rev. P. No.22 of 2020 Page - 5 of 8

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. 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

Crl. Rev. P. No.22 of 2020 Page - 6 of 8

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.

[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

Crl. Rev. P. No.22 of 2020 Page - 7 of 8

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.

[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

Crl. Rev. P. No.22 of 2020 Page - 8 of 8

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.

JUDGE

Rudradeep

Crl. Rev. P. No.22 of 2020