Present vs .
2022 Latest Caselaw 746 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 3


                           HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA

                           CRL. REV P NO.20 OF 2022

   Sri Manidra Biswas
   Vs.
   The State of Tripura.

              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

   Present:
   For the Petitioner(s)            : Mr. A.K. Pal, Advocate.

   For the Respondent(s)            : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.

Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

05.08.2022

Order

This instant criminal revision petition has been filed

under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C.

challenging the judgment and order dated 23.02.2022 passed

by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in

connection with Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 whereby the Ld.

Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment of the learned Trial

Court dated 24.01.2020 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 6, Agartala, West Tripura in

connection with case No. PRC (WP) 683/2014 whereby the

learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 354

of the Indian Penal Code for simple imprisonment for 1(one)

year and further convicted the petitioner for simple

imprisonment for 4(four) months under Section 323 of Indian

Penal Code which shall run consecutively and to pay a fine of

Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of

Indian Penal Code with default stipulation.

Heard Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel representing his

senior counsel Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. R. Datta, P.P. along with Mr. S.

Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-

respondent.

Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner contended that the instant revision has to be allowed

and the order passed by the Courts below needs to be set aside

since the complaint does not indicate any serious allegations

against the accused person herein. The P.W. - 5, who is the

victim has deposed before the Court and the same is an

improved version. So-called eye-witnesses i.e. P.W-1 and P.W-

2 who have stated against the accused person in their evidence

if corroborated in the light of the complaint i.e. Exhibit No.1

and with the evidence of PW-5, there are much discrepancies.

In view of such, this Court has to consider in favour of the

accused person.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the said argument

and contended that the order passed by the court below is in

accordance with law and it is a case of conviction as rightly

decided by the Courts below and prayed to dismiss the instant

petition.

Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.

Admittedly this Court is convinced with the argument

of Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel representing his senior counsel,

Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel. This Court feels that in the light

of the complaint and the evidence of P.W.-5, there is much

variation and discrepancies. In view of such variation and

discrepancies, the same needs to be considered in favour of the

accused person.

Accordingly, this instant criminal revision petition is

allowed and the lower Courts Orders are set aside.

Consequently, pending application(s), if any also stand

closed.

JUDGE

suhanjit