Tripura High Court
Biswajit Banik vs The State Of Tripura on 1 July, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P.10 of 2024
Biswajit Banik
................... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
........... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Samar Das, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl.PP.
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment and order : 01.07.2024.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment and Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel along
with Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.
Ghosh learned Addl. PP for the State.
[2] This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
following reliefs:
"a. admit this petition
b. issue notice
c. call for records and
iv. after hearing the parties interfere and set aside the Conviction and
sentence dated 02-02-2024 passed by **** Ld. Session Judge Dhalai
Judicial District, Ambassa, in Criminal Appeal 02 of 2023 whereby Ld.
Court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Ld. Assistant
Session Judge, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa in ST(Type- II) 06 OF
2022 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to suffer RI for 2 years for
the commission of offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and RI
for 5 years for the commission of offence punishable under section 326B
of IPC and in the interim suspend the conviction and sentence till
disposal of the Criminal Revision pass such other order or orders as the
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice..............."
[3] The brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant
on 22.06.2020 got married with the convict petitioner herein. The
complainant alleged that convict petitioner on several occasions used to
torture the complainant and lastly, on 19.01.2022 at about 13:00 hours
convict petitioner started altercation with the complainant. Thereafter
convict petitioner brought one bottle of carbolic acid and thrown upon the
complainant but somehow she managed to save herself and ran away to
the kitchen. Following her, convict petitioner went to kitchen and poured
said carbolic acid upon the body of complainant. As result of that, she
received burn injuries and on hearing hue and cry the land lord came at
the spot and on seeing this informed the matter to her relatives.
Accordingly complainant lodged written complaint to the Ambassa Police
Station on 18.02.2022. Thereafter investigating authority started
investigation and on culmination of investigation submitted charge sheet
against the convict petitioner. Learned Trial court after analysing and
discussing all the materials announced the judgment on 13.04.2023 and
convicted the petitioner whereby sentenced the convict petitioner for RI
of 2 years for the commission of offence punishable under section 498A
of IPC and RI of 5 years for the commission of offence punishable under
section 326B of IPC.
[4] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 13.04.2023, the petitioner herein
preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge vide No. Criminal
Appeal 02 of 2023. Learned Appellate court after hearing the parties
passed judgment on 02.02.2024 whereby, the Appellate Court upheld the
conviction and sentence of the petitioner as passed by learned Assistant
Session Judge, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa in Sessions Triable
(Type-II) 06 of 2022. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by
filing this criminal revision petition.
[5] Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that learned Trial court failed to appreciate the
evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 with PW-9 in respect of marriage and
living together. There are some discrepancies in the observation made by
the learned Trial court. He further submits that learned Court below failed
to appreciate that there was no marriage between the convict and the
victim and prosecution has completely failed to prove such cardinal issue.
Learned senior counsel, therefore, prays that the conviction under
Section 498A IPC is liable to be set aside. He, further contends that there
was no proof of demand of money by the convict and the prosecution
also failed to prove such demand of money either in the way of relation
or living relation.
[6] Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel argues that the
findings under Section 326B of the IPC is perverse because of the
contradicted statements of the victim (PW-1) itself along with prosecution
witnesses i.e. PW-3, PW-9, wherein the victim stated that acid was
thrown by the convict petitioner but, the statement of PWs 3 & 9
indicates that acid might have been consumed by the victim. Both the
situations are different in nature. As such, the findings of the Courts
below required to be interfered with. He further submits that the learned
Courts below failed to appreciate the issue of informing police in respect
of delay of almost one month, though the medical prescription does not
speak about such issue. Therefore, he prays that the findings recorded by
the courts below be set aside.
[7] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
[8] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of records, this Court is of the view that the prosecution could not
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds force in the
argument made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Thus,
the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. As consequence thereof, the
impugned judgment and order is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted
from the accusation.
In the light of the above, the present petition stands
allowed and accordingly, the same is disposed of. As a sequel,
miscellaneous application(s) pending if any, shall also stand closed.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi G.
SABYASACHI Digitally signed by SABYASACHI
GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.07.06 16:42:29
+05'30'
