High Court Of Tripura vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 637 Tri

                               Page 1



                 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                     Crl. A (J) 15/2021
Sri Chandan Adhikari
son of late Lalit Adhikari, resident of North Barjala,
P.S. Bishramganj, District- Sepahijala, Tripura
                                                               ----Appellant
             Versus
The State of Tripura                                           ----Respondent
For Appellant(s)                :       Mr. A. Das, Advocate
For Respondent(s)               :       Mr. Ratan Datta, PP
                                        Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. PP
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order                :       06.07.2022
Whether fit for reporting       :       Yes / No

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
                              JUDGMENT

(T.Amarnath Goud, J) Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well

as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP assisted by Mr. S. Debnath, learned

Additional PP appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and

sentence dated 20.04.2021 passed in connection with case No. S.T.(T-1) 12 of

2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sepahijala District,

Bishalgarh, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge

had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections

447/326/307 IPC, and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 (ten) years with

default stipulation.

Page 2

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 11.09.2014 at 16.30

hours the appellant entered into the house of the complainant and started

shouting and abusing him, and at that time Goutam Adhikari, another nephew

of the complainant arrived there on hearing the shouting of the accused and

asked the reason of his shouting and then the accused got furious and attacked

upon Gautam Adhikari taking out a dagger (sharp knife) due to which said

Gautam Adhikari sustained grievous bleeding injury on his abdomen and the

accused was so furious that after striking once he was in desperate mode to

strike repeatedly as to kill the victim. It was also alleged that the complainant,

his relatives and others intervened into the issue and freed the victim from the

clutch of the accused and thereafter shifted him to Bishalgarh Hospital

wherefrom he was referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital.

4. The said complaint was registered as Bishramganj PS case no. 70 of

2014 under Sections 326/307/506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated by

the investigating officer, and after completion of investigation submitted

charge-sheet against the convict appellant under Sections 447/326/307/506 of

the IPC. At the commencement of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

had framed charges against the convict appellant to which he pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution to establish the charges had adduced 10

(ten) witnesses. After closure of recording evidences, the convict appellant

was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations Page 3

leveled against him by the prosecution witnesses but had adduced two

witnesses on his behalf as DW-1 and DW-2. After hearing arguments and on

examining the evidences and materials on record, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge had convicted and sentenced the appellant for committing

offence punishable under Section 447/326/307 IPC. Hence, this appeal before

this court.

6. Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges leveled against the

convict-appellant. Mr. Das, learned counsel without disputing the alleged

incident had fairly submitted that there was a scuffling between the accused-

appellant and the victim and in course of such scuffling, the accused-appellant

had also sustained severe injuries on his person caused by the victim and his

relatives. Mr. Das, had further argued that the appellant had been falsely

implicated with the instant case because there was some disputes regarding

land in between the accused and the family of the victim and more so, if there

was any assault or attack, as alleged, the same occurred at the heat of the

moment and there was no intention on the part of the accused-appellant to

cause any such injury to the victim and finally, Mr. Das, learned counsel has

argued that the prosecution witnesses are all the relatives of the victim, which

version cannot be relied upon. Mr. Das, has urged this court to take a lenient

view and reduce the period of sentence, as awarded by the learned trial court.

Page 4

7. On the other hand, Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP has supported the

findings of the learned trial court while convicting the accused. Mr. Datta, has

also submitted that if the evidences of prosecution witnesses are read

conjointly it could safely be presumed that the convict appellant had

committed the alleged offence. Hence, learned PP has submitted to maintain

the findings of the learned trial court.

8. We have considered the submissions for learned counsel appearing for

the parties. We have perused the evidences and materials on record and the

judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. For purpose of appreciating

the submissions of learned counsel, it would be pertinent for us to revisit the

evidences let in by the prosecution witnesses.

PW 1 Sri Gautam Adhikari, the victim of this case deposed that on

11.09.2014 at about 4/4.30 p.m. he was putting vegetable in his bike near

the pond adjacent to his house for selling the vegetable in the market and

he heard the chaos from the house of his uncle Sukumar Adhikari and

went to the house of his uncle and he inquired and asked the reason of

chaos from the accused and the accused came before him and turned out

one knife of about one hand long and pierced that knife in his stomach

(abdomen) and again tried to assault him but he captured the knife and by

that capturing his thumb was also got injured and his left and right hand

got injured. PW 1 also deposed that due to injury his internal organs came

out from his body and blood was also oozing out and the accused Page 5

tried to assault him several times and thereafter the accused entered into

his house and concealed himself in the house. At the time of assault his

uncle Sukumar Adhikari and his wife Sapna Adhikari along with his

younger brother Sumanta Adhikari were also present and tried their best to

save the victim from the assault and thereafter he became senseless.

PW-2, Sri Jiban Debnath deposed that on 11.09.2014 at about 4/4.30

p.m. he noticed Gautam Adhikari in injured condition and his stomach

was wrapped by cloth and took the injured along with Swapan Debnath

and Sumanta Adhikari and went to Bishalgarh hospital and PW 2 left all

the persons at the Bishalgarh hospital and went to his next trip.

PW-3, Dr. Shyam Sundar Saha, is the Medical Officer who had

examined the victim in the hospital and prepared the injury report.

PW-4, Taher Miah deposed that he heard from Sumanta Adhikari and

Swapna Adhikari, the family members of Goutam Adhikari about the

incident of 2014.

PW-5, Smt. Sipra Das being Sub-Inspector of Bishramganj PS had

registered the Bishramganj PS case no. 70/14 and filled up the printed FIR

form.

PW-6, Sri Sukumar Adhikari deposed that on the date of incident

Chandan Adhikari came to his house and asked him why he was not

having any pond while the witness asked him to make inquiry from his

own mother and on hearing the chaos, Goutam Adhikari came to the spot Page 6

and asked Chandan Adhikari that why he was arguing there and then

Chandan Adhikari turned out one dagger which he kept in his pant and

stabbed Goutam Adhikari. PW 6 also stated that on hearing the chaos 2

other persons also came there and he along with them tried to save

Goutam and when Chandan was again trying to assault Goutam they

captured the dagger from the accused and thereafter accused went inside

his house and locked the door from inside.

PW-7, Smt. Swapna Adhikari, wife of Goutam Adhikari deposed that

the incident took place in the house of her uncle-in-law, namely, Sukumar

Adhikari. She also stated that after hearing chaos, her husband went to the

house of Sukumar Adhikari and inquired about the matter when her uncle-

in-law told Goutam that Chandan has started quarrel for pond and her

husband asked about this from Chandan Adhikari. PW 7 further stated that

earlier also Chandan used to quarrel but on that day after hearing more

chaos, she went inside the house of her uncle-in-law where she saw

Chandan Adhikari had started fight with her husband and he took one

dagger(Bhojali) and stabbed into the stomach(abdomen) of her husband.

She also stated that she along with her uncle-in-law and Sumanta Adhikari

and some other persons of the locality tried to save her husband Goutam

from the attack of Chandan.

The deposition of PW-8, is replica to the deposition made by PW-7.

Page 7

PW-9, Sri Swapan Debnath deposed that his house is adjacent to the

house of Goutam Adhikri and the incident took place on 11.09.14 at about

4.30 p.m. and he went to the spot after hearing chaos and saw the quarrel

between Goutam and Chandan Adhikari. PW 9 also deposed that he saw

Chandan Adhikari stabbed with a dagger on Goutam Adhikari and

thereafter he along with some others arranged a Maruti vehicle to shift

Goutam Adhikari to Bishalgarh hospital and later Goutam Adhikari was

referred to GB Hospital.

PW-10, Sanjib Debbarma is the I/O of the case who had submitted the

charge sheet after completion of his investigation.

For better appreciation of the case, let us now revisit the evidences let in by

the defence witnesses.

DW-1, Smt. Karuna Adhikari, wife of the accused-appellant deposed that

on 11.09.2014 at about 4/4.30 a.m. her husband Chandan Adhikari has

called in her uncle-in-law Sukumar Adhikari to their courtyard for having

conversation on the issue relating to a land and that there are 2 uncles of

her husband and both of them have borrowed Rs.4000/- from her father-

in-law 20/25 years ago and she came to know about this from her mother-

in-law and her husband. DW-1 also stated that 4 gandas of land were

stated to have been sold to her father-in -law by her 2 uncles-in-law in

consideration of that amount of Rs.4000/- and also stated that though

possession of land was given but no deed of conveyance was made and her Page 8

husband demanded for execution of documents in respect of the said land

but her uncle-in-law Sukumar had denied to give any document. DW 1

further deposed that in course of quarrel, her uncle-in-law Sukumar

Adhikari gave a blow upon her husband with a wooden lathi from their

courtyard and hearing the quarrel her brother- in- law Goutam Adhikari,

came to their house with a knife and was rebuking her husband and also

stated that a scuffling between Goutam Adhiikari and her husband

Chandan started and in course of that, both of them sustained some

injuries on their persons. DW 1 further deposed that several persons of the

neighbourhood came to their house hearing the quarrel and later Police

also came to their house on being informed by someone. DW 1 further

deposed that her uncle -in -law Sukumar Adhikari then talked with Police

personnel in a side but she cannot say what conversation taken place

between them and Police then took away her husband stating that he

would be examined by a Doctor. DW 1 further deposed that Sukumar

Adhikari etc. had threatened her after her husband was taken away by the

Police that their dwelling house will be burnt down by them and thereafter

as the evening occurred, she along with her little son and her minor

daughter went to her father's house and also stated that after 2/3 days when

she returned to their house, she found that 2 huts of their house have been

burnt down.

Page 9

DW-2, Puja Adhikari, daughter of the accused-appellant deposed that

on 11.09.2014 at about 4/4.30 p.m. when she came to their home from

school she witnessed a quarrel was going on between her father and her

one grandfather Sukumar Adhikari in respect of registration of some land

but, her grandfather denied to execute any document. At that time her

uncle Goutam Adhikari rushed to their house rebuking her father and

stating that they would not give any paper for the land and he came to their

house with a knife in his hand. Her grandfather also took up a lathi in their

courtyard and he had given a blow to her father. On the other hand

scuffling also took place between her father and Goutam Adhikari and in

course of that Goutam Adhikari fell down on the earth and sustained some

injuries from the knife due to such falling. Her father also sustained some

injuries in the scuffling. People from the neighbourhood also came to their

house hearing the hue and cry. Later Goutam Adhikari rushed to the

hospital. Police also reached to their house. Sukumar Adhikari then talked

alone with the police taking them to a side. Police then took away her

father stating that he would be examined by a Doctor as he sustained

injuries. Later her father was taken to a Doctor in Bishramganj Hospital.

Later Police did not release her father and they did not pay any heed to

their request. Later on Sukumar Adhikari and others were threatening

them that they would not allow them to remain in their house and that their

dwelling house will be burnt down. Thereafter they took shelter to her Page 10

maternal uncle's house. After 2/3 days when they returned to their house,

they found that 2 huts of their house have been burnt down.

9. On scrutiny and scanning of prosecution evidence and other material as

well as the defence evidences and facts and circumstances on record keeping

them in juxtaposition, it transpires clearly that initially there was an altercation

between the accused-appellant and the victim which ultimately turned down

into scuffling between them and it is further evident from the cross-

examination of PW-6 and PW-8 that there existed some land dispute between

the accused-appellant and the victim prior to the incident. From the cross-

examination of PW-8, it has been established that when the accused-appellant

was in judicial custody, his wife and children went to the houses of the father-

in-law of the accused-appellant, during that period the portion of kitchen room

of the accused-appellant was set on fire. DW-1 and DW-2 also in their

evidence has categorically stated that prior to the incident, there was some

land dispute between the accused-appellant and the family of the victim and

there was a scuffling between the accused-appellant and the victim. DW-1 and

DW-2 also had deposed during their absence at their residence, a portion of

their dwelling hut was set on fire. Thus, it can be presumed that since there

exist some dispute between the accused and the family of the victim, an

altercation took place between the accused and the victim in regard to the land

dispute and the accused-appellant on the heat of anger had committed such

offence punishable under penal code, which act of the appellant was not at all Page 11

intentional or that the appellant had no motive to kill or cause any grievous

injury to the victim.

10. Having considered thus, we come to this conclusion that the trial court

has rightly convicted the appellant based on material evidence produced by

the prosecution and there is no infirmity in the impugned findings regarding

conviction. From a perusal of the record and considering the facts in its

entirety, it seems that the offence have occurred at the spur of the moment; the

appellant had no intention or motive to kill the victim; the appellant does not

have any criminal antecedent in his past life; he is not required in any other

criminal case except the one in question. Accordingly, it is considered to be

just and proper to alter/modify the sentence of the appellant from 10 years to

that of 7 (seven) years.

11. Consequently and for the aforestated reasons, the instant appeal is

partly allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court

is modified to the extent as indicated above, and the appellant shall undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years. It transpires that the

appellant had been in custody during investigation and thereafter, since the

date of the judgment. Thus, he has already suffered rigorous imprisonment for

a considerable period.

12. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.04.2021

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sepahijala, Bishalgarh in Page 12

connection with case No. S.T. (T-1) 12 of 2016 is modified to the above

terms.

Send down the LCRs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.

                        JUDGE                                             JUDGE




Saikat