Sri Billal Miah vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 461 Tri

                             Page 1


                HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                       CrL. A (J) No. 56 of 2020
Sri Billal Miah
son of Abdul Kasim Miah, resident of Srimantapur, Sonamura,
District-Sipahijala Tripura.
                                                          .....Appellant.
                               Versus
 The State of Tripura                                   .....Respondent.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH For the Appellant (s) : Mr. N. Majumdar, Legal Aid Counsel For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

Mr. D. C. Roy, Advocate .

Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & order                :   25.04.2022
Whether fit for reporting       :   No

                    JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. N. Majumdar, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. D. C.

Roy, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant.

2. This is an appeal filed against the judgment and order of conviction

and sentence dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Sepahijala District, Sonamura in case No. Session Trial (Type - 1) 15 of

2016, whereby the appellant was convicted to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation for Page 2

commission of offence punishable under Section 364 IPC, and further

sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay a

fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation for commission of offence

punishable under Section 324 IPC, and both the sentences shall run

concurrently.

3. The prosecution case as projected by learned trial court is that :

"i. On 25/05/2016 at about 0930 hrs the daughter of the complainant namely Parul Begam went out from her house with her child for Sonamura Hospital, while she reached at Sonamura Shopping complex near the shop of one Selim Miah, at that time the FIR named accused person namely Billal Miah (herein appellant) forcibly kidnapped Parul Begam by a vehicle bearing no. TR 01 - AG - 0279 and proceeding towards Melaghar with the help of another named accused Manir Hossain. It is also alleged that the FIR named accused Billal Miah had assaulted the daughter of the complainant by a sharp cutting weapon i.e. knife with a view to kill her, as a result of which the daughter of the complainant sustained grievous injuries on her person and while the FIR accused persons along with Parul Begam reached at Melaghar at that time Melaghar police staff detained them and thereafter, arranged to admit Parul Begam at Melaghar Hospital for treatment".

4. The complaint lodged by the complainant has been treated as FIR.

Investigation was carried on. On completion of the investigation charge

sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant under Section 364/324 of Page 3

IPC. At the commencement of trial, charges were framed against the accused

appellant under Section 364, 324 and 307 of the IPC.

5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined as many as 18

witnesses. On closure of prosecution witnesses, the accused-appellant was

examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein the accused appellant had

denied the allegations surfaced against him by the prosecution witnesses,

and the appellant intended to adduce evidence on his behalf to prove his

innocence. The accused had adduced 3 (three) witnesses on his behalf.

6. On closure of examination of all the witnesses and argument being

heard, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused

appellant as aforestated. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

aforesaid conviction and sentence, the convict-appellant has preferred the

instant appeal before this court.

7. I have perused the evidences and materials on record and the

judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

8. In the instant case, the evidence of the victim, Smt. Parul Begam who

deposed as PW-10 appears to be very important. She deposed on 18 th day of

June, 2019 before the court and in her examination-in-chief she has stated

that about 3 (three) years back on a day at about 9.30 am she was proceeding

towards Sonamura Shopping Complex to attend a Medical Officer for the

treatment of her child. When she arrived in front of the shop of one Selim Page 4

Miah, at that time, accused Billal Miah, the appellant herein, appeared

therein along with one white colour vehicle being driven by one Manir

Hossain and just after stopping the vehicle accused Billal Miah forcefully

took her child from her lap and forcefully dragged her inside the vehicle by

catching hold of her hair and her wearing apparel. She raised alarm,

however, the driver started running the vehicle towards Rabindranagar. She

further deposed that inside the vehicle said Billal Miah started assaulting her

by fist and blows and caused severe injuries on her cheek and face. The

convict also had given knife blows on her left thigh, hip, etc. PW-10 has

further deposed that she requested Manir Hossain to stop the vehicle, but, he

did not pay any heed to her request. However, the vehicle was detained by

police personnel of Melaghar PS at Telkajala and they rescued her. She was

brought to Melaghar hospital where she was admitted for about three days.

After receipt of information, her mother came to Melaghar hospital when

she narrated the entire incident to her mother. Accordingly, her mother Smt.

Bakul Begum (PW-1) lodged the complaint which was treated as FIR.

During cross-examination, her statement that she was forcefully

dragged into the vehicle was found absent when her attention was drawn to

her previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Apart from

that, there is no material discrepancies.

Page 5

(ii) PW-1 Bakul Begum, the complainant has corroborated the

statements she made in the FIR. She identified her signature in the FIR

(Exbt. 1/1). No material contradictions are found during her cross-

examination by the defence.

(iii) PW-2, Mohamad Rafik, a constable, deposed that darogababu of

the Melaghar police station seized one Maruti Suzuki (Alto) bearing

registration No. TR01-AG-0279 and also one knife from the possession of

the accused Billal Miah. Seizure list was prepared. PW-2 identifed his

signature on the seizure list marked Exhibit-2/1.

(iv) PW-3, Smt. Sefali Datta, deposed that on the fateful date and

time she found accused Billal Miah, whom she knew personally, dragging

the victim Parul Begam forcefully inside the vehicle and asked the driver to

proceed towards Melaghar. She also had seen the victim raising alarm.

(v) PW-4, Nitai Chan Saha is another witness of seizure of the

vehicle and the knife .

(vi) PW-5, Sri Jayanta Paul and PW-6, Sri Jadhav Shil, are the

seizure witnesses of different articles which were worn by the victim at the

time of her abduction.

(vii) PW-9, Sri Dulal Sharma deposed that on the fateful date and

time he found one Alto vehicle was proceeding towards Melaghar from

Sonamura and due to traffic jam the driver had to drive the vehicle slowly Page 6

when he found the accused Billal Miah inside the Alto and the victim was

shouting seeking help.

(viii) PW-11, Sri Ajit Dey, is the owner of a shop who deposed that

on the fateful date and time he heard some shouting of a lady and some other

persons. He came out from his shop and found a white colour vehicle (Alto)

was proceeding towards the Bridge Chowmuhani. He further deposed that

on his further query he heard that one Billal Miah forcefully dragged his

wife inside the vehicle.

(ix) PW-13, Jahangir Hossain, deposed that both Billal Miah and

Parul Begam were known to him, and one day both of them visited him to

resolve the dispute as Billal Miah has got another wife before marrying

Parul Begam, the victim.

(x) PW-14, Tapan Debnath, deposed that on that fateful date and

time he was performing vehicle checking duties at Melaghar, Indiranagar on

Sonamura-Agartala road. At that time, he was informed by Officer-in-charge

of Melaghar Police Station to detain one vehicle bearing No. TR01-AG-

0279 which was proceeding towards Melaghar from Sonamura. He was also

asked to check the vehicle. Accordingly, he checked the vehicle and found

one lady with bleeding injuries along with a minor child and two other male

persons. He further deposed that on his query, said lady told him that

amongst the said persons, one was Billal Miah, the appellant herein, and Page 7

another was Manir Hossain. She further informed to PW-14 that said Billal

Miah caused injuries to her by a sharp cutting weapon. Thereafter, PW-14

bought the vehicle at Melaghar P.S, and in course of search, they have been

able to trace out the sharp cutting weapon, like knife, from the possession of

Billal Miah and immediately, they brought the lady to Melaghar Hospital

and admitted her therein for treatment.

(xi) PW-15, Dr. Gopal Krishna Debnath, deposed that on

25/05/2016, when he was attached to Melaghar Hospital as a Medical

Officer, the victim was admitted to the hospital through police personnel.

She was treated till 28/05/2016 with history of physical assault by her

husband. After examination, he found laceration in the occipital region of

the scalp which was simple in nature caused by blunt object. He further

deposed that he found multiple small abrasion whole over the back which

was also simple in nature caused by blunt object. He submitted report on

07/06/2016 and identified his report bearing his signature marked as Exhibit-

7.

(xii) PW-16, Sri Srikanta Chakraborty deposed that on the fateful

date and time he was attached to Sonamura Police Station as Sub-Inspector

of police. In the noon of 25/05/2016 he received an information that a

vehicle was detained comprising one lady and two other persons and a minor

child. Officer-in-charge of Sonamura police station registered the case. PW-

Page 8

16 investigated the case. He visited the place of occurrence, seized the knife

and other articles, as aforestated. The knife was sent to SFSL.

(xiii) PW-17, Sri Rahul Roy, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, recorded

the statement of the victim lady (PW-10) on 01/06/2016 under Section 164

(5) of Cr.P.C.

(xiv) PW-18, Dr. Sabyasachi Nath, the Senior Scientific Officer-cum-

Assistant Chemical Examiner of the State SFSL, deposed that on

examination, he found that human blood stain was detected in the Exhibit A

and B and that was determined as "A" group. He submitted the report on

27/04/2017. He also identified the report (Exbt.-9).

(xv) On the other hand, DW-1, Aliya Begam, deposed that the

victim Parul Begam (PW-10) was her daughter-in-law, and Billal Miah was

having two wives. She deposed that the behavior of PW-10 (victim) was

unruly from the very beginning of her marriage with Billal Miah, the

accused. DW-2, Selim Miah, deposed that the relationship between the

accused Billal Miah and the victim was not healthy. DW-3, Anower

Hossain, also deposed that there was strange relation between the accused

and the victim (PW-10).

9. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the above evidences. I

find that the victim lady (PW-10) is found to be consistent in her statement Page 9

which was further corroborated by her mother, PW-1, who lodged the FIR

immediately after the incident as per narration of the victim.

The fact that the victim was forcefully dragged inside the vehicle and was

proceeding towards Melaghar, and during such movement, the victim

suffered with injuries by knife inflicted by the convict-appellant have been

proved. I find nothing wrong in the findings of the learned trial court as

regards these circumstances.

10. The circumstance that the vehicle was detained by police personnel

and they found the victim lady (PW-10) along with her minor child and the

accused-appellant and another Manir Hossain inside the vehicle have also

been proved.

11. The injuries suffered by the victim have been proved by the doctor

(PW-15) who treated her in the hospital. On the contrary, no material came

out from the evidence of DWs 1, 2 and 3 regarding the innocence of the

accused-appellant. From SFSL report, it transpires that the blood sample of

the victim lady and the blood collected from the back seat of the vehicle has

matched with each other. The related part of the examination report may be

reproduced here-in-below:

"10. Details of parcel and exhibits received: One sealed paper envelope parcel bearing specimen seal impressions (SDPO SONAMURA) contained the following exhibits:

i. Exhibit-A: One sealed paper envelope bearing case reference, contained a piece of cotton bearing some light brownish stain, said to be blood sample collected from back seat of vehicle (BR No. TR 01 AG 0279).

Page 10

ii. Exhibit-B: One sealed paper envelope bearing case reference, name of one Parul Begam, seal and signature of M.O., contained pieces oflight brownish stained gauge cloth, said to be control blood sample of Parul Begam.

11. Results of examination: The above described exhibits were subjected to chemical tests and immunological tests. The results based on the tests are: i. Human blood stain was detected in the Exhibits-A and B; and their group could be determined as 'A group."

12. In the light of above discussions, I find no materials in the instant

appeal to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence

as recorded by the Ld. Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the present appeal

stands dismissed.

13. The convict-appellant shall serve the remaining period of sentence.

The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial

Judge including the fine imposed upon the appellant stand upheld and

affirmed.

Send down the LCRs.

JUDGE

Snigdha