Sri Braja Kumar Jamatia Alias Palu vs The State Of Tripura
2023 Latest Caselaw 162 Tri

                                Page 1 of 6



                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                      _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_

                        CRL.REV.P. No.33 of 2021

Sri Braja Kumar Jamatia alias Palu, S/O- Shri Vhrigu Mohan Jamatia, of
Krishna Vatha Para, P.S.-R.K. Pur, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura.
                                                       ...... Petitioner(s)
                               VERSUS
The State of Tripura.
                                                       ......Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)        :      Mr. D. Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)        :      Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.

            HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Date of hearing and Judgment : 13th February, 2023.

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. D. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

[2] The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated

03.05.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur

in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2019 whereby the learned Sessions Judge

dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner upholding the judgment dated

06.04.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati

District, Udaipur in PRC(WP) No.36 of 2017 whereby he convicted the

accused-petitioner under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for

short) and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 2(two) years and to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- in default thereof to suffer S.I. for a further period of 3(three)

months.

[3] Brief facts are as under :

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the intervening

night of 08/09.04.2016 at about 2 am when the informant opened the door

she found some unknown miscreants in undercover mask standing outside

her door. She was all alone in her house and out of apprehension she tried

to close the door but the miscreants forcefully opened the door and

threatened her to keep quiet or else they would kill her. They literally

forced her to hand over the keys of almirah and subsequently took away

cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and also tried to eradicate her gold jewellery which

she was wearing. They also took away her Nokia mobile phone and two

torchlight and one bank passbook of Tripura Gramin Bank. Immediately

after the incident, the informant filed the FIR.

[4] On the basis of the FIR, a case was registered vide R.K. Pur

P.S. case No.34 of 2016 under Sections 457/392 of IPC against the

unknown persons. Subsequently, the investigation was started and after

completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet

dated 22.02.2017 under Sections 457/392/34 of IPC. After taking

cognizance, charges were framed against the petitioner to which he

denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

[5] The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati District,

Udaipur vide judgment dated 06.04.2019 although acquitted the other

accused persons but convicted the petitioner herein under Section 379 of

IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and

to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under section 379 of IPC. In default

of payment of fine, the convict had to suffer simple imprisonment for a

further period of three months.

[6] The petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2019

against the judgment dated 06.04.2019 passed by the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Gomati District, Udaipur before the learned Sessions

Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. The learned Sessions Judge after

hearing counsel for the respective parties and on appreciating the records

dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2019. The learned Judge observed

that the judgment of the learned trial Court was based on correct

appreciation of the evidence and materials on record and found no reason

to interfere with the same. The operative portion of the judgment reads as

follows :

"In the light of the above, I am of the opinion that the judgment of learned Trial Court is based on correct appreciation of the evidence

and materials on record and there is no reason to interfere with the same in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2019 passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Udaipur in case No. PRC(WP) 36 of 2017 is hereby upheld."

[7] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of the

courts below, the petitioner filed this present revision petition seeking the

following reliefs :

"(i) Admit this revision petition;

(ii) Call for the records;

(iii) Issue notice upon the respondent;

(iv) After hearing of this parties and on perusal of the evidence on record be pleased enough to set aside/quashed the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2019 by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur whereby Ld. Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order dated 06.04.2019 passed by the Ld. Trial Court whereby Ld. Trial Court convicted the petitioner U/S 379 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine the convict has to suffer S.I. for further period of three months."

[8] Mr. D. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contends that from the prosecution witnesses, especially P.Ws 9 and 10, it

transpires that whereas P.W.9 has stated that he obtained the seized mobile

phone from one Smt. Birendra Bhakti Jamatia, on the other hand P.W.10

stated that he purchased the mobile phone from one Braja Kumar Jamatia

and police seized the said mobile phone from his maternal uncle. So, there

are clear contradictions between the versions of the two prosecution

witnesses. He further contends that there are discrepancies in the

depositions of the other prosecution witnesses also and asserts that the

petitioner is not liable for any offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.

Subsequently, he prays for setting aside the judgment dated 03.05.2021

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in Criminal

Appeal No.15 of 2019 whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the

appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 06.04.2019

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati District, Udaipur

in PRC(WP) No.36 of 2017.

[9] On the other hand, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for

the petitioner contending that the courts below have not committed any

error in passing the judgment as the same was based on correct

appreciation of evidence and materials on record which calls for no

interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present revision

petition filed by the petitioner.

[10] After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties,

this Court finds that this is not a case of any interference. The counsel for

the revision petitioner argued on the point of evidence that has already been

appreciated by the original side in the appellate Court as well as by the trial

Court and the scope for revision is very minimal and the counsel has not

made out a case for interfering in the revision jurisdiction. Resultantly, this

instant revision petition is dismissed and the judgment dated 03.05.2021

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in Criminal

Appeal No.15 of 2019 is hereby confirmed upholding the judgment and

order of sentence dated 06.04.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Gomati District, Udaipur in PRC(WP) No.36 of 2017.

[11] Send down the lower court records forthwith.

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

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Pulak/Dipesh