Tripura High Court
Sri Prasenjit Roy vs The State Of Tripura on 8 August, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL. REV. P NO.37 OF 2023
Sri Prasenjit Roy
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 08.08.2024.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This present petition has been filed under Section-397
read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C challenging the Order dated 02-
05-2022 passed in Case No. Criminal Appeal-02 of 2021 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bishalgarh, Sepahijala Judicial
District whereby the learned Court below has dismissed the appeal
upholding the conviction of the appellant passed by the Trial Court
and sentenced him to suffer R/I for one month for offence under
Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 & to suffer R/I for a period
of 06 (six) months under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. Furthermore, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five
hundred) only under Section-187 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 in
default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of further 15
(fifteen) days.
2. The brief fact of this case is that on 15.01.2014 at
about 20.00 hours, when the victim-Khokon Das, was going by
walking by the side of the National Highway towards Madhya Bazar
Vivekananda School, near Bishalgarh PS and at that time, the
offending motorbike (Pulsar) B/R No. TR-01-R-9900 came at a rash
and negligent manner and dashed the victim from the back side due
to which he received grievous injuries upon his persons. Local
people shifted him to Bishalgarh Sub Divisional Hospital from where
he was referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital and there, at about 10
p.m., he succumbed to his injuries.
3. Thereafter, FIR was lodged by the informant Pintu Das,
brother of the victim on 15.01.2014, the first investigating officer
S.I. Drabajoy Reang and second investigating officer SI Satya
Ranjan Nandy of Bishalgarh PS investigated the case, and
submitted the charge sheet under Section 279/304 A of IPC and
187 of MV Act against the accused namely Prasenjit Roy i.e. the
petitioner herein.
4. The prosecution adduced as many as 10 witnesses.
During the trial, after the closing of the Prosecution evidence, the
accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he
denied and disputed the evidence adduced by the prosecution side
and declined to adduce defence evidence on his behalf. Finally, the
learned Trial Court passed impugned Judgment and Order of
conviction and sentence against the petitioner after hearing the
argument of both sides.
5. Against the said sentence, the accused-petitioner
herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2021 before the learned
Appellate Court. After hearing, the learned Appellate Court below
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the conviction
followed by the sentence as mentioned here-in-above. Hence this
present revision petition before this Court.
6. Heard Mr.R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P.
appearing for the State-respondent.
7. Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that apart from the police witnesses, the
rest of the prosecution witnesses are related and interested
witnesses to the victim deceased, so, their version of the story
cannot be trusted. As such, the learned lower Appellate Court has
wrongly appreciated the evidence and findings of the learned Trial
Court while upholding the conviction of the petitioner herein.
8. On the other hand, learned P.P., relied upon the
witness of P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.4, and P.W.-7 who were the
eyewitnesses of the incident. Learned P.P., further relied upon post-
mortem examination report wherein it is stated that," the cause of
death was head injury by impact of some hard and blunt object and
findings are consistent with the history."
Stating thus, learned P.P., urged this Court to
dismiss this appeal.
9. Heard and perused the evidence on record.
10. This Court is aware of the fact that there are
several eyewitnesses to the incident i.e. P.W.-2, P.W.-3, and P.W.4
who are related witnesses to the victim-deceased and P.W.-7 who
was the owner of the shop in the place of the incident. This Court is
also aware of the comment given in the post mortem examination
report. But this Court has to also consider the fact that at the time
of the incident, the accused-petitioner was only 19 years of age and
the petitioner before the Court below submitted that out of
ignorance he had committed such a crime and this is his first
offence. So, considering the balanced approach to justice, the
sentence imposed by the Court below under Section 304-A of IPC
for 6(six) months with fine of Rs.500/- to the petitioner herein is
reduced to simple imprisonment for 1(one) month and a fine of
Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner herein to the family of the
deceased in 30(thirty) days from today failing which he shall
undergo further imprisonment of 2(two) months. Apart from this
observation, all other aspects of the Judgment and conviction as
passed by the Court below shall remain unaltered.
11. In view of the above, this present petition is
allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, stay if any
stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.
Send down the LCRs.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally
RAJKUMAR
signed by
SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2024.08.12
SINGHA 12:00:17 +05'30'
