Tripura High Court
Sri Babul Chandra Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 25 July, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 36
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
Crl. Rev. P. No.30 of 2023
Sri Babul Chandra Debnath
.....Petitioner
_V_E_R_S_U_S_
The State of Tripura
.....Respondent
Connected with
Crl. Rev. P. No.31 of 2023
Sri Trilokesh Sinha
.....Petitioner
_V_E_R_S_U_S_
The State of Tripura
.....Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No.33 of 2023
Sri Tapash Datta
.....Petitioner
_V_E_R_S_U_S_
The State of Tripura
.....Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Advocate.
Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.
Mr. S. Majumder, Advocate.
Ms. V. Poddar, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Whether fit for reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
_J_U_D_G_M_E_N_T_
25.07.2024
Heard Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, learned counsel, Mr. A.
Bhattacharjee, learned counsel and Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the
respondent-State.
[2] All these petitions are consolidated for disposal by a common
judgment inasmuch as the controversy is structured on facts which resemble.
The present petition has been filed against the dismissal of criminal appeal
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura Belonia by the
impugned judgment and order dated 17.05.2023 in connection with Criminal
Appeals No.1 of 2022 and others whereby and whereunder, the learned
Sessions Judge was kind enough to upheld the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class Belonia South Tripura in case No. PRC (WP) 94 of
2016 whereby the present petitioners were sentenced to suffer SI for 2 years
for the offence punishable under Section-353 read with Section-34 of IPC
and to suffer SI of two months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i.e. to suffer
further SI for 10 days for commission of offence punishable under Section-
447 read with Section-34 of IPC and the prayer of the petitioners for setting
aside the conviction and sentence has been rejected without considering the
issues in the correct perspective.
[3] The facts in brief are that on 02.09.2015 w.e.f. 0900 hours the
complainant Sri Sudip Kumar Paul, the then SDPO, Belonia along with
staffs were performing law and order duty at Belonia Court premises in
connection to 24 hours All India Strike called by the Left supported Trade
Unions [CPI(M)]. In the first floor of Court buildings at Judges chamber
office rooms, the complainant noticed around 4/5 persons suspected to be
CPI (M) supporters were shouting upon the Court staff and restraining them
in attending work and demanded go out from the office and made hot
altercation with the officials.
[4] The learned District & Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia
on hearing the loud voices in the corridor, came out and they had
confrontation with the District & Sessions Judge and also abused him. On
arrival of the Complainant and O.C, Belonia, P.S., the said suspected
picketers were made to move down through the nearest shortcut staircase
from the spot of the said Court building and further joined with the unlawful
assembly in front of the Court premises where a huge number of
men/women picketers of CPI (M) assembled in support of All India Strike
(Bharat Bandh). Therefore, the complainant lodged the suo moto complaint
against 4/5 unknown miscreants for creating disturbance in the Court.
[5] On the basis of the FIR, police registered Belonia P.S. Case No.
2015/BLN/113 under Sections-448/353/506/34 of IPC and after
investigation finding prima facie case, S.I. Sankar Saha filed charge-sheet
dated 10.05.2016 vide C/S No. 20/2016 under Sections-448/353/506/34 of
IPC against accused Sri Tapash Datta, Sri Trilokesh Sinha and Sri Babul Ch.
Debnath. After taking cognizance and supplying the prosecution copies to
the accused persons charges under Sections-447, 353 and 332 read with
Sections-34 of IPC have been framed against accused Sri Tapash Datta, Sri
Babul Ch. Debnath and Sri Trilokesh Sinha. The accused persons denied the
charges and claimed to be tried.
[6] During trial, prosecution examined as many as twenty-two
witnesses and they are namely; PW-1, Sri Jhuman Das (victim), PW-2, Sri
Satyabrata Das, PW-3, Sri Bimal Chakma, PW-4, Sri Dipankar Majumder,
PW-5, Sri Basudeb Pal, PW-6, Sri Dilip Debnath, PW-7, Sri Ashish Das
Gupta, PW-8, Sri Bijan Pal, PW-9, Sri Mrinal Dey, PW-10, Sri Sudip Kr.
Paul, the then SDPO, Belonia (complainant), PW-11, Sri Swapan Sarkar,
Inspector of police (RO), PW-12, Sri Ruhidas Pal, the then District &
Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia (victim), PW-13, Sri Sankha Subhra
Pal, PW-14, Sri Sourav Pal, PW-15, Smt. Suchitra Sen Gupta, PW-16, Md.
Amir Hossain, PW-17, Kulsum Bibi, PW-18,Sri Nipu Datta, PW-19, Sri
Shib Sankar Majumder, PW-20, Sri Badal Pal, PW-21, Sri Rabi Ranjan
Bhomwik (victim) and PW-22, Sri Sankar Saha, S.I. of police (Investigating
Officer). The convict-petitioners were examined under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C.,
at which they denied the incriminating materials and inclined to adduce
defence witness and they adduced one witness namely Sri Goutam Sen as
DW-1.
[7] In view of the above and having gone through the material
evidence on record, the learned Court below has observed as under:
"[41] So, based on the above depositions, this court finds that learned trial
Court has rightly given the judgment and there is no scope for any
interference. Accordingly, I upheld the judgment passed by learned trial
Court.
[42] So, in the totality of the evidence of the witnesses I find no impropriety in
the judgment of learned trial Court justifying any interference from this Court.
I find no merit in the appeals. Thus, the appeals are dismissed. The convict-
petitioners are hereby directed to surrender before learned trial Court within
one month from today to undergo the sentence."
[8] Mr. D. Chaim Kabir, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in support of his case has submitted that the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below which was
subsequently upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia
suffers from illegality, impropriety and irregularity and as such, the
conviction and sentence is required to be set aside. The facts elicited in
cross-examination were not at all considered by the learned trial Court below
and hence the order of conviction is liable to be set aside.
[9] The discrepancies between the statement of the witnesses, yet
this fact were not at all considered by the learned trial Court below. The
revision petitioners did not enter into the Court premises and no one has
identified them. So the informant has not named the accused in the FIR and
the learned Court below did not appreciate the same. The staff of the Court
cannot be treated as public servant because they were found gossiping and
not on their respective seats and same was not appreciated by the learned
Court below. The manner of investigation is disputed as the procedure
adopted by the prosecution is random in choosing of the witnesses from the
charge-sheet list for proving the case of the prosecution the same was not
appreciated and as such, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Court below is liable to be set aside.
[10] The witnesses who have identified the accused have not
corroborated each other and the maximum witnesses are hearsay witness on
the point of identification. The learned Court below accepted the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses in totality whereas discarded the cross-
examination of same those witnesses without discussing it by holding that
the defence could not discredit the prosecution witnesses and could not elicit
anything to dislodge their evidence. There is embellishment, concoction,
addition and improvement in the evidence of some vital witnesses. The
prosecution could not prove the essential ingredients assault and criminal
force. The Section-353 and Section-447 of IPC are not proved and as such,
the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is
liable to be set aside.
[11] Learned counsel has mainly argued on the point of law and he
has also categorized the witnesses in three sets in his argument. One set of
witnesses are from the Court as well as police officials, another set is of
independent witnesses and defence witness.
[12] Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that
the learned trial Court below erred both in law and in facts while
appreciation in evidence on record. It is further contended that the learned
Court below failed to marshal the evidence in its proper perspective. While
discussing the evidence of witnesses accepted the examination-in-chief
portion of evidence but disbelieved the cross-examination made by the
defence without assigning any reason or legal grounds for disbelieving the
cross-examination part of the evidence and thereby caused serious
miscarriage of justice.
[13] Learned counsel has argued on the point that the prosecution
could not prove the essential ingredients „assault‟ and „criminal force‟. So,
the Section-353 and Section-447 of IPC are not proved. However, learned
trial Court has convicted the petitioners. He submits that Court is a public
place and anyone can enter in the Court premises. So, there is no any
question of criminal trespass. Learned counsel has also argued that there are
contradictions in the depositions of PW-9, PW-1, PW-10, PW-12, PW-21
and PW-18. He submits that this is a fit case to allow the petition by setting
aside the judgment of learned trial Court.
[14] He further argued that the incident happened but the question,
what happened and who was there. Selected evidence being placed. The
independent witnesses i.e. investigating officer says they could not identify
the accused. PWs-16, 17 and 19 who was forcibly tendered with submission,
recorded of the Public Prosecutor that he was gained over. Other
independent witnesses deliberately excluded.
[15] The investigating officer admits that he did not try and collect
the attendance register of the Court staff and also admits that there was no
reason in the case diary why he recorded their statements. Delayed recording
of PW-18 who was examined much later wherein, he was ostensibly on
leave though no records or statement exist in this regard. The statement of
PW-18 was manufactured and was completed contradicted with the
statements of PWs-10 and 11. His version of standing in front of the SJ
contradicts everyone else including PWs-9, 10, 12 and 20. The Sessions
Judge told the investigating officer to record his statement only after all the
staff statements were recorded. The investigating officer says even on
second attempt he was unable to take the statement and finally recorded the
statement on 03.09.2015.
[16] The best evidence of learned Sessions Judge‟s report to this
Court never made available. The SP was not examined regarding the
conversion with the learned Sessions Judge and information given to him.
Best circumstance of press video footage was never made available. The
investigating officer admitted that the identification of the accused persons
were not confirmed except by the Court staffs. Admittedly, no Test
Identification parade was ever held those who knew the accused never
identified them and those who did not know them said they came to know
their names from others.
[17] He prayed to take a lenient view and allow the petition and set
aside the impugned judgment. The learned counsel appearing in other
petitions have adopted the argument. In support of his case, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on some decisions of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court and one of them is Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab,
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 402, Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of
Delhi), reported in (2005) 5 SCC 258 and Sukhwant Singh v. State of
Punjab, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 367.
[18] On the contrary, Mr. R. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor
submits that in this case the informant has corroborated his FIR and other
eye witnesses have also seen the petitioners at the spot. In this case the main
victim is the Court and other victims are the then District Judge and court
staff namely Sri Jhuman Das and Sri Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik. Learned P.P.
argued that the petitioners intentionally entered in the Court premises to
pressurize the court for not functioning on 02.09.2015 and they wanted to
give message in the society that all the institutions in the State have to run
under the control of their party.
[19] The presence of the accused persons with other picketers in
front of the Court has been admitted by the defence by adducing defence
witness. Even the independent witnesses have also seen these petitioners in
front of the Court. The petitioners along with their picketers gathered in front
of the Court before Court time with motive to obstruct the functioning of the
Court on the date of offence that is why they entered in the Court and
threatened the then District & Sessions Judge and some of the officials.
[20] He also submits that the petitioners are political known figure in
the area, so they can be easily identify by the local staff of the court who
were present in the Court premises at the time of incident. The witnesses
like, PW-1, PW-7, PW-10, PW-18, PW-2, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-21
identified the accused persons in the Court. Other witnesses have also
supported the case of the prosecution and there is no doubt on the deposition
of the witnesses. So, he submits that the prosecution has been able to prove
the case against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt and learned trial
Court has passed the judgment as per law and there is no ground to interfere
with the finding of learned trial Court. Hence, the present petition should be
dismissed.
[21] In support of his case, learned P.P. also placed reliance on some
decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State Rep. by Dey. Supdt. of Police,
CBI v. V. Jayachandra @ Ezhu Viral and Others, reported in (1997) 10
SCC 70, Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in 2023
SCC Online SC 1396, Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar, reported in (2019) 12
SCC 784, Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar and Others,
reported in (1998) 1 SCC 201, Raj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
reported in (2008) 11 SCC 76, Harivadan Babubhai Patel v. State of
Gujarat, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 45, Sadayappan alias Ganesan v. State
represented by Inspector of Police, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 257, Malkeet
Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204 and
Hebsur Rehaman v. State by Hunsur Town Police Station in Crl. P.
No.5287 of 2022.
[22] Heard both sides.
[23] The evidence of PWs-1, 12, 21, 7, 2, 5, 6, 10, 18 are relevant to
appreciate the prosecution‟s case. The evidence of PW-12, Sri Ruhidas Pal,
the then learned District & Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia it is
found that, on 02.09.2015 as like other days before 10 a.m. he along with his
Personal Guard, Sri Mrinal Dey (PW-9) and his Orderly, Sri Asish Das
Gupta (PW-7) entered into the court premises and he noticed that two staff
of his court namely Sri Jhuman Das (PW-1) and Sri Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik
(PW-21) were sitting under the Banian tree of the court. He asked them to
come inside the office. Thereafter he enteredinto his Official Chamber and
was talking with his Orderly and P.G. and when it was around 10.15 a.m., at
that time one of his staff Nipu Datta (PW-18) came running to him and
informed that some picketers came and were threatening the staff of the
court. Hearing this, he came out of his Chamber to enquire about the matter
and then he saw 6/7 picketers outside of his Chamber who were threatening
the staff such as Jhuman Das (PW-1), Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik (PW-21) and
others.
[24] Then he asked them as to what happened and then among the
picketers, three persons came towards him and out of them one having black
complexion told him "stooge (chamcha) of the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice
Mr. Deepak Gupta and told him if he is a judge and whether he adjudicate
cases and if he has the guts asked him to adjudicate him," to which he [Mr.
Ruhidas Pal, Sistrict & Sessions Judge] informed that there is an order of
Hon‟ble High Court to run the Court even on the day of strike to which that
person became furious. At that time, his staff Jhuman Das and Rabi Ranjan
Bhowmik asked those persons not to misbehave with him telling that he is a
District Judge to which one of the picketers told him that he knows very well
that he is a Judge. At that time he was given guard by his P.G. PW-12 also
deposed that out of those persons, one person threatened Jhuman Das and
Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik and told them to leave the Court. Meanwhile, SDPO,
Sudip Pal (PW-10) and O/C, Belonia P.S. (PW-11) came there and took
away those persons. Then he returned back to his Official Chamber and
informed the S.P., South Tripura about the incident. PW-12 further deposed
that due to the misbehaviour of those persons, he was disheartened. After
the incident he find that most of the staff of the court left the court.
[25] Thereafter, with one of his staff namely Bijan Pal (PW-8) and
with his P.G. he performed his court works by passing formalorders. He also
reported the incident to the Hon‟ble High Court ofTripura. On the following
day, from Jhuman Das, Rabi RanjanBhowmik he came to know that the
person having black complexionwho misbehaved with him whose name was
Tapash Datta and the name of rest two persons were Trilokesh Sinha and
Babul Debnath. PW-12 has identified the accused Tapash Datta in the dock.
[26] Now the evidence of PW-1, Sri Jhuman Das, who is the eye
witness and one of the victims of this case. He has deposed that on
02.09.2015 he was posted as Bench Clerk in the Courtof the then learned
District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ruhidas Pal (PW-12).On that day a 24 hours
strike was called by CPI(M). He came to the Office on that day at about 9.30
a.m. and was talking with Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik (PW-21). At about 9.50
a.m. learned Sessions Judge came along with his Orderly and P.G. and other
security. After he entered the Chamber, they were sitting outside and was
talking. At that time, three persons came there and threatened them to leave
the Court as a strike was called on that day.
[27] He also deposed that when they were threatening them, one of
the staff namely Nipu Datta informed the matter to the Sessions Judge and
when he came out to enquire the matter, one person among the three
namely Tapash Datta ran towards the Sessions Judgewith an acrimonious
gesture and said that if the Sessions Judge was the „Chamcha‟ of the
Hon‟ble the then Chief Justice Mr. Deepak Gupta. At that time, one staff
Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik came and asked Tapash Dattanot to behave with a
judge like that and at that time another person among the three, Trilokesh
Sinha tried to throttle Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik.
[28] He also deposed that, learned Sessions Judge informed them
that it was the Order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Tripura to perform work
on that day and at that Tapash Datta tried to physically attack the Sessions
Judge, but the P.G. Mrinal Kanti Dey intervened and another person
among the three Babul Debnath dashed and pushed them and sent them
out of the Court and stopped them from performing their works. He also
deposed that he know Tapash Datta as he was a local leader and later on he
came to know the names of other two persons from the Orderly of learned
Sessions Judge namely Asish Das Gupta. The witness also identified the
accused persons by face in the Court.
[29] PW-2, Sri Satyabrata Das is a Court staff and he is also a local
resident of Belonia Town. His evidence shows that, on 02.09.2015 he was
posted as Bench Peon in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division)-cum-
J.M. 1st Class, Belonia and on that day a 24 hours strike was called by
CPI(M). At about 10 past 10 a.m. when he tried to enter the Court, he was
stopped by some picketers in front of the Court, but somehow he entered the
Court and found that a hue and cry was going on in front of the chamber of
the then learned District & Sessions Judge. He went there and found some of
the court staffs namely Jhuman Das (PW-1), Bimal Chakma (PW-3), Dilip
Debnath (PW-6), Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik (PW-21) and the then learned
District Judge (PW-12) were present and some of the picketers were arguing
with them. "The picketers asked whether they were the „Chamcha‟ of
Hon‟ble the then Chief Justice Mr. Deepak Gupta and asked them as to
why they were performing duty and abused them." Thereafter, he left and
informed the matter to other staffs. The witness identified the accused
persons by face.
[30] PW-5, Sri Basudeb Pal has deposed that on 02.09.2015 he was
posted as P.S. -IV, attached with the then learned Sessions Judge and on that
day a 24 hours strike was called by left front party. At about 10.30/10.35 am
"he came to the Court and was restrained by the picketers and
accordingly, he returned." Later on, he came to know from Mrinal Dey,
P.G. of the then learned Sessions Judge that, Trilokesh Sinha, Tapash Datta
and Babul Ch. Nath misbehaved with the then Sessions Judge and called him
a stooge of the Hon‟ble Chief Justice Mr. Deepak Gupta. The witness
identified the accused persons before the Court.
[31] PW-6, Sri Dilip Debnath is the local resident of Belonia Town
and he has also corroborated the other witnesses in his deposition. He
deposed that on 02.09.2015 he was posted as Bench Peon in the Court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Belonia. On that day a 24hours strike was
called by CPI(M). "There was an instruction from Hon‟ble High Court to
perform the duty of the Court on that day. Accordingly, at about 10 a.m.
he came to the Court and some of the party supporters of CPI (M) entered
the Court and abused Jhuman Das and Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik as to why
they were performing duty and also physically harassed them. At that time,
the then learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ruhidas Pal came out to inquire the
matter and the accused persons threatened him and called him as stooge
(Chamcha) of the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice Mr. Deepak Gupta. He also
deposed that, they tried to attack learned Sessions Judge, but the SDPO
intervened." At that time P.G. of learned Sessions Judge namely Sri Mrinal
Dey and Orderly, Sri Asish Das Gupta was also present. At that time, he was
present in front of the Nazarat and the incident took place in front of the
Court of the learned Sessions Judge. Among the picketers he found Tapash
Datta, Trilokesh Sinha and Babul Ch. Nath. He also identified the accused
persons in the Court.
[32] PW-7, Sri Asish Das Gupta was the then Orderly of learned
District & Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, Sri Ruhidas Pal (PW-12).
He is a local resident of Belonia town. Let us see what he deposed relating to
this case. He deposed that on 02.09.2015 All India Strike was called by a
political party. On that day at about 10 a.m. the then learned Sessions Judge,
Ruhidas Pal, P.G. Mrinal Dey (PW-9) and he entered the Court. "At about
10.15 a.m. Nipu Datta (PW-18) went and informed them that some of the
picketers are harassing Court staff Jhuman Das (PW-1) and Rabi Ranjan
Bhowmik (PW-21). At that, the then learned Sessions Judge came out of
his Chamber and inquired the matter and at that Tapash Datta, who was
among the picketers, called the then learned Sessions Judge a „Chamcha‟
(stooge) of the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice Mr. Deepak Gupta. At that the
picketers became acrimonious and asked the staff to leave and not to
perform duty. At that the SDPO intervened. After the incident the then
learned Sessions Judge asked them that they may leave." He also deposed
that there were many other picketers whom he could not identify. The
witness identified the accused persons before the Court by name and face.
[33] Now, we shall discuss the evidence of PW-9, Sri Mrinal Dey,
who was the P.G. of the then learned District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ruhidas
Pal (PW-12) at the time of incident. He deposed that on 02.09.2015 a 24
hours strike was called by a political party. At about9.50 a.m. the then
learned District & Sessions Judge, his orderly Asish Das Gupta (PW-7) and
he came to the Court. At about 10.15 a.m. one Group-D staff of the Court
namely Nipu Datta (PW-18) informed the then learned District & Sessions
Judge that some of the persons were threatening the office staffs to leave
the Court. At that, learned District & Sessions Judge and he came out to
see what happened and one person asked the District Sessions Judge as to
why he was attending Court and as to whether he was the stooge
(Chamcha) of the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice Mr. Deepak Gupta and he
also tried to physically assault the then Sessions Judge, but he (PW-9)
intervened. He also deposed that on the next day he came to know that
name of that person was Tapash Datta and he came to know it from staff of
the court Jhuman Das (PW-1), Asish Das Gupta (PW-7) and Rabi Ranjan
Bhowmik (PW-21). He further deposed that when the staff Rabi Ranjan
Bhowmik protested to such ill-behaviour, another person who was fair
skinned and was havingbleached hair, threatened the staff and also pushed
him. Later on, he came to know that the name of the person was Trilokesh
Sinha. Another person pushed the other staff of the Court and dragged them
outside the Court. Later on, he came to know that the name of that person
was Babul Debnath and he came to know their names on the next day from
other staffs. He also identified the accused persons in the Court.
[34] Now, we shall go through the evidence of PW-10, Sri Sudip
Kumar Pal, the then SDPO, Belonia, South Tripura. He is the complainant of
this case. He has deposed that on 02.09.2015 a 24 hours strike has been
called by CPI (M) political party and accordingly on that day since morning
he along with Inspector Swapan Sarkar and other staffs were performing law
and order duty in the Belonia town area and as a part of their police arranged
duty, he around 9.45 a.m. escort the then learned District & Sessions Judge,
Belonia. Thereafter, he, O/C, Belonia P.S. and other staffs performing their
duty in the main gate of District & Sessions Judge Court premises.
[35] PW-11, Sri Swapan Sarkar, Inspector of police has deposed
that, in the year 2015 he was posted as O/C, Belonia P.S. On 02.09.2015 the
then SDPO, Belonia lodged a suo moto complaint to him and accordingly he
have registered the same. He identified the registering note in the complaint
petition which bears his signature and official seal as exhibit-1/2. He also
filled up the printed form of FIR and he identified the same which has been
marked as exhibit-2 (as a whole).According to him, on 02.09.2015 a 24
hours strike has been called by CPI(M) and accordingly on that day since
morning he along with the then SDPO, Belonia and other staffs were
performing law and order duty in the Belonia town area and as a part of their
police arranged duty, "he escorted learned CJM, Belonia as well as learned
J.M. 1st Class, Belonia to the Court. At that time some picketers tried to
enter into the Court complex and he restrained them. He also deposed that
when it was around 10.15 am, he was being informed that SDPO called
him as there was some dispute going on in the Court of learned District &
Sessions Judge, Belonia. He immediately rushed towards the Court of
learned District & Sessions Judge, Belonia" and after reaching there from a
distance he noticed that some people were moving through the upstairs
which is near the Chamber of learned District & Sessions Judge. He sensed
that something wrong has happened, then he tried to chase those persons but
he could not trace them out. Thereafter, he returned to the spot and saw that
SDPO and learned District & Sessions Judge are having some interactions.
Thereafter, after sometime he left the place.
[36] After a sometime around10.15 to 10.20 a.m. they heard a loud
noise coming from the veranda of learned District & Sessions Judge Court.
Immediately, along with O/C, moved towards the corridor through the
shortcut staircase of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class and
reaching on the first floor he saw from a distance some picketers were
restraining the court staff to joint their court work. The picketers also argued
with learned District & Sessions Judge, Ruhidas Pal. On seeing him and
O/C, the picketers moved from there taking the way of the nearest staircase.
He immediately thought for the safety of learned District & Sessions Judge
and shifted him in his chamber safely. Finding the importance of the matter,
he lodged a suo moto complaint to the O/C, Belonia P.S. regarding the
incident. He identified two accused persons (Babul Ch.Nath and Tapash
Datta) in the dock by face. He also proved his petition of complaint and his
signature thereon as exhibit-1 and 1/1 respectively.
[37] PW-18 is Sri Nipu Datta, who first time informed PW-12, the
then learned District & Sessions Judge about the nuisance of the picketers
towards the staff members. PW-12, PW-1, PW-21 have also admitted in
their depositions that this witness informed PW-12 about the entering of 5/7
persons in the Court building. PW-18 has deposed that on 02.09.2015 he
was posted as Day Guard in the Court of the learned District & Sessions
Judge and on that day at about 8 a.m. he opened the door of the court
rooms for the sweepers to clean. From 8.30 a.m. to 9 a.m. the picketers of
CPI (M) started to gather in front of the gate of the Court. On that day
there was a strike called by CPI(M). At about 9.45 to 9.50 a.m. the then
learned District & Sessions Judge, Ruhidas Pal came to the Court along with
his P.G. and police security and entered his Chamber. At that time, he came
and was sitting in the veranda of the first floor of this Court building.
[38] At that time Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik (PW-21) and Jhuman Das
(PW-1) were with him and at that time 5 to 7 persons came in the corridor of
the first floor of the building and threatened Jhuman Das and Rabi Ranjan
Bhowmik to leave the Court. At that, he went to the Chamber of learned
District & Sessions Judge and informed him the same and accordingly the
then learned District & Sessions Judge came out. Seeing him (the then
learned District & Sessions Judge) the picketers approached towards him.
PW-18 then rushed down stair and informed the police about the same
and again came back to the first floor and found they were misbehaving
with the then learned District & Sessions Judge.
[39] Thereafter, he (PW-18) and the police personnel stood in front
of the learned Sessions Judge and police brought those picketers out from
there. PW-18 also deposed that the picketers called the then learned
District & Sessions Judge as the stooge of the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice
Mr. Deepak Gupta and asked as to why the court work was being
performed on that day. PW-18 further deposed that he knows those
picketers by face who were present on that day and misbehaved with the
then learned District & Sessions Judge. He came to know their names
from Asish Das Gupta (PW-7) and Dilip Debnath (PW-6) that their names
were Tapash Datta, Trilokesh Sinha and Babul Debnath. He deposed that,
thereafter the then learned Sessions Judge asked them to leave from there.
PW-18 has identified the accused persons by face.
[40] Now, we shall focus our attention to the evidence of another
eye witness Sri Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik, PW-21. He is also one of the victims
of this case. He has deposed that on 02.09.2015 he was posted at Belonia
Court as LDC, attached with the Judicial Section. On that day, he came to
the Office at 9.30 a.m. He was alone sitting under the beneath of a tree. After
15/20 minutes, Jhuman Das (PW-1) joined him. After about 5/10 minutes
later the then District & Sessions Judge, Ruhidas Pal came to the Office
along with his P.G. and Orderly. Thereafter, he went to his Chamber and
they were sitting in a chair in the corridor. Thereafter, order staff namely
Nipu Datta came to the Office and at 10 a.m. other staffs also came to the
Office.
[41] He also deposed that when they were sitting in the corridor, at
that time 7/8 picketers entered into the Office and asked them what they
were doing here in a strike. In reply they told them as today is the working
day, so they came here to perform duty. Again they warned them whether
they will go to their home or not and if not then they will face consequences.
On hearing hue and cry, the then learned District & Sessions Judge came out
of his Chamber to enquire the matter. They had gone to the District Judge
and the picketers also followed them. At that time the picketers asked the
then learned District & Sessions Judge what he was doing in a strike. He
(PW-21) told the picketers that he is their District Judge, on being heard, the
accused persons became aggressive and told him that he knows him so he
should not make him know that he is a District Judge. He asked loudly
that if you are a Judge, judge him and he also told the District Judge that
the District Judge is a stooge (Chamcha) of the then Hon‟ble Chief Justice
Mr. Deepak Gupta. While the picketers cordoned the District Judge, the
P.G. of the then District Judge namely Mrinal Dey came forward and saved
him. Thereafter, considering the situation, the District Judge told them to go
back their home. He also deposed that the picketers pushed them to leave the
court. Later on he came to know the name of the picketers namely Tapash
Datta, Babul Debnath, Trilokesh Sinha from Asish Das Gupta. He identified
all the accused persons in the Court.
[42] In support of his case of the petitioners, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on some decisions of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court and one of them is Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab,
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 402, wherein the Court held thus:
"14. Now so far as the conviction of the accused on the PW1 - eye-witness
identifying the accused in the Court Room and non-conducting the TIP is
concerned, while appreciating the said aspect the averments in the FIR which
was given by PW1eye-witnesses are required to be referred to. It may be true
that as per the settled position of law the FIR cannot be encyclopedia.
However, at the same time when no TIP was conducted the first version of the
complainant reflected in the FIR would play an important role. It is required to
be considered whether in the FIR and/or in the first version the eye-witness
either disclosed the identity and/or description of the accused on the basis of
which he can recollect at the time of deposition and identify the accused for
the first time in the Court Room?
15. Having gone through the FIR on the identity of the accusedit is stated as
under:
"I was driving the scooter and Gian Chand was sitting behind me. When we
were at link road shaterwala from Fazilka A bohar G.T. road about 1-11/2
kilometer ahead, three young persons reached with us on a scooter from the
backside, out of them, two clean shaven young persons having ages of 30-35
year and one Sikh (sardar) who had tied a (Thathi) a piece of cloth having the
age of about 30- 32 years, who was sitting in the middle was having a 12 bore
gun of small barrel all these three young persons while reaching with us tried
us to stop. When we did not stop then a clean-shaven young person who was
sitting on the rear seat of the scooter thrown chilly powder on our faces and
eyed with his hand as a result of which we could not see and we stopped our
scooter being helpless a and opened our eyes after placing hand on the eyes. In
the meantime these young persons stopped their scooters ahead of our scooter
and came forward to snatch our scooter. We tried to prevent them, in the
meantime, a Sikh Youngman fired a shot at Gian Chand in a strength way
with his 12 bore gun hitting him on the chest as a result of which he fell down
on the ground."
Thus, from the aforesaid it is seen that except stating that the accused were
three young persons out of which two were clean shaven and the one Sikh
(sardar) who had tied a (Thathi) having the age of 30-32 years no further
description had been given by the complainant - PW1. Nothing has been
mentioned in his first statement that he had seen the accused earlier and that
he will be able to identify the accused.
16. In light of the above, the deposition of PW1 in the Court and his
identifying the accused for the first time in the Court is required to be
appreciated. In the examination-in-chief, PW1 has stated as under:
"When at about 1-30 p.m. when we had covered a distance of about eight
k.m.s from G.T. road and were going on the link road of Shaterwala, three
young persons came from our back side on a scooter. They tried to stop us but
we did not stop. They over took our scooter and put chillies powder in my
eyes. That chilly powder entered in my right eye and I had to stop my scooter.
After rubbing the eye I opened the same. Gain Chand alighted from my
scooter."
* * * * * *
"Out of three young persons, two young boys tried to snatch my scooter. Gian
Chand came parallel to me and tried to prevent those boys from snatching the
scooter. One of those boys fired a shot at Gian Chand which hit him at his
chest on the seat of heart. All the three said young persons are the accused
who are present in the court today (witness has pointed towards one of the
accused as the person who had fired at Gian Chand and that accused has
disclosed his name as Amrik Singh). The accused who is standing on one side
had put the chili powder in my eyes (the name of the accused pointed out by
the witness has been disclosed as Subhash Chand)."
21. Even applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions
and looking to the facts narrated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that it
would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of
their identification for the first time in the Court."
[43] Another case in Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of
Delhi), reported in (2005) 5 SCC 258, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held
thus:
"29. The learned counsel for the petitioners also urged that it was the case of
the prosecution that the police had requisitioned a Maruti car from Ved
Prakash Goel. Ved Prakash Goel had been examined as a prosecution witness
in this case as PW 1. He, however, did not support the prosecution. The
prosecution never declared PW1 "hostile". His evidence did not support the
prosecution. Instead, it supported the defence. The accused hence can rely on
that evidence.
30. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Raja
Ram v. State of Rajasthan, JT (2000) 7 SC 549. In that case, the evidence of
the Doctor who was examined as a prosecution witness showed that the
deceased was being told by one K that she should implicate the accused or
else she might have to face prosecution. The Doctor was not declared
"hostile". The High Court, however, convicted the accused. This Court held
that it was open to the defence to rely on the evidence of the Doctor and it was
binding on the prosecution.
31. In the present case, evidence of PW1 Ved Prakash Goel destroyed the
genesis of the prosecution that he had given his Maruti car to police in which
police had gone to Bahai Temple and apprehended the accused. When Goel
did not support that case, accused can rely on that evidence."
[44] Another case in Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, reported
in (1995) 3 SCC 367, wherein, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under:
"19.In State of U.P. v. Jaggo which has been referred to and relied upon by the
prosecution and the trial court for adopting the procedure of tendering PW4
and PW5 for cross examination only in our opinion, has not been properly
appreciated and has been misapplied. That judgment cannot be read to lay
down, as a matter of legal preposition, that a witness can be "tendered" for
cross-examination even without there being any examination in chief If there
is some earlier statement of the witness recorded by a competent court or an
affidavit filed in the trial court and the witness testifies to the correctness of
that earlier statement at the trial, it (in certain cases of witnesses of a formal
nature) as noticed earlier be permissible to tender him for cross-examination
after he is sworn to the correctness of the earlier statement, because in that
even that earlier statement is treated as the examination-in-chief of the witness
but that is not the same thing as tendering a witness for cross-examination
only, without there being any examination-in-chief on the record. In Jaggo's
case (supra) a Bench of this court was considering the question whether the
mere presentation of an application by the prosecution to the effect that a
certain witness had been "won over" was conclusive of the allegation that he
had been so "won over" and the prosecution was therefore relieved of its
obligation to examine him at the trial. The preposition was negatived and it
was in that context, that this court observed:
"On behalf of the appellant it was said that Ramesh Chand was won over and
therefore the prosecution could not call Ramesh. The High Court rightly said
that the mere presentation of an application to the effect that a witness had
been won over was not conclusive of the question that the witness has been
won over. In such a case Ramesh could have been produced for cross-
examination by the accused. That would have elicited the correct facts. If
Ramesh were an eye-witness the accused were entitled to test his evidence
particularly when Lalu was alleged to be talking with Rames h at the time of
the occurrence."
20. The Division Bench, therefore was considering a peculiar fact situation in
that case and even in that context it was observed that the witness "could have
been produced for cross-examination by the accused" and that "the accused
were entitled to test his evidence." The observations of the Division Bench in
Jaggo's case, therefore, do not support the view that a material witness can be
"tendered" for cross-examination only. The observations from a judgment of
this Court cannot be read in isolation and divorced from the context in which
the same were made and it is improper for any Court to take out a sentence
from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context in which it was
given, and treat such an isolated sentence as the complete enunciation of law
by this Court. The judgment in Jaggo.v (supra) has in our opinion been mis-
appreciated and that judgment cannot be interpreted as a sanction from the
Supreme Court to the prosecution to adopt the practice of tendering a witness
for cross-examination only, without there being any examination-in-chief, in
relation to which the witness has to be cross-examined. All that the judgment
In Jaggo's case (supra) emphasizes is that the mere ipsi dixat of the prosecutor
that a particular witness has been won over is not conclusive of that allegation
and the Court should not accept the same mechanically and relieve the
prosecutor o his obligation to examine such a witness. It was for this reason
suggested by the Bench that where the prosecution makes such an allegation,
it must keep the witness in attendance and produce him to enable the defence
to cross examine such a witness to test his evidence as well as the allegations
of the prosecution and bring out the truth on the record. After the coming into
force of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which replaced the Code of
1998, recording of evidence in commitment proceedings have been totally
dispensed with and section 299 of that Code has been emitted. Consequently,
the course suggested by some of the High Courts in the earlier quoted
judgments regarding tendering of a witness for cross-examination who had
been examined in the committal court, is also no more relevant or available.
The Jaggo's case, which was decided when the Code of 1898 was operating in
the field could not, therefore, be pressed into service by the trial court while
dealing with the instant case tried according to the Code of 1973. Thus,
considered it is obvious that the trial court, wrongly permitted the prosecution
to tender PW4 and PW5 for cross-examination only. Both PW4 and PW5
were, according to the prosecution case itself, eye witnesses of the occurrence
and had removed the deceased to the hospital. Their evidence was, of a
material nature which was necessary for the unfolding of the prosecution
story. The effect of their being tendered only for cross examination amounts to
the failure of the prosecution to examine them at the trial. Their non-
examination, in our opinion, seriously affects the credibility of the prosecution
case and detracts materially from its reliability."
[45] In the above witnesses the evidence of District Judge and the
staff of the Court have been discussed along with the informant and O/C,
Belonia P.S. All the witnesses who came to the Court on 02.09.2015 for
discharging their duties have fully corroborated each other. There are some
local staff also who have been examined as PW-2, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8. In
the cross PW-6 has admitted that he knew the accused persons. The defence
has admitted in the cross of informant and other court staff that the
petitioners are the local leaders and well known in the society. PW-22 the
I/O of this case has also admitted in cross that during his investigation it has
been revealed that the court staff identified the accused persons. So, the
dispute raised by the defence about the identity of the petitionerss cannot be
accepted as the maximum court staffs who have been examined have
corroborated the fact about the identity of the petitioners. Although learned
defence counsel has tried to draw some contradictions, but those
contradictions are not found material one for shaking the credibility of the
witnesses.
[46] In the above witnesses the evidence of District Judge and the
staff of the Court have been discussed along with the informant and O/C,
Belonia P.S. All the witnesses who came to the Court on 02.09.2015 for
discharging their duties have fully corroborated each other. There are some
local staff also who have been examined as PW-2, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8. In
the cross PW-6 has admitted that he knew the accused persons. The defence
has admitted in the cross of informant and other court staff that the
petitioners are the local leaders and well known in the society. PW-22 the
I/O of this case has also admitted in cross that during his investigation it has
been revealed that the court staff identified the accused persons. So, the
dispute raised by the defence about the identity of the petitioners cannot be
accepted as the maximum court staffs who have been examined have
corroborated the fact about the identity of the petitioners. Although learned
defence counsel has tried to draw some contradictions, but those
contradictions are not found material one for shaking the credibility of the
witnesses.
[47] Learned counsel has disputed that the charge framed under Sec.
447 and 353 read with Sec. 34 of IPC are not proved in this case because the
Court is a public place and anyone can enter into the Court. He also relied on
the judgments mentioned in Para-9 in Sl. No. 16, 17 & 18. As there is
allegation of criminal trespass and assault or apply of criminal force to deter
public servant from discharge of duty against the convict-petitioners, this
Court refers the relevant provision of Sections-441, 350, 351, 447, 353, 332
and 34 of IPC, which reads as under:
"441. Criminal Trespass._Whoever enters into or upon property in the
possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult
or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully
entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent
thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to
commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".
350. Criminal force.__Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without
that person‟s consent, in order to the committing ofany offence, or intending
by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of
such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the
force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
351. Assault.__Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or
knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person
present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to
use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.
447. Punishment for criminal trespass- Whoever commits criminal trespass
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred
rupees, or with both.
353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his
duty- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public
servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to
prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant,
or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in
the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both.
332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty- whoever
voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of
his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or
any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or
in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the
lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention- When a
criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner
as if it were done by him alone."
[48] In view of above discussions this Court is of the view that the
case of the prosecution is that charges have been framed under Sections-
445/332 and 353 of IPC and trial has been taken place by the Court below.
As many as 22 PWs and one DW have been examined and exhibited some
relevant documents and at the end accused persons were examined under
Section-313 of Cr. P.C. Considering the case in its entirety, the learned
Court below has discharged the accused persons from the charge levelled
against them under Section-323 and convicted under Section-447 and 353 of
IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred an appeal which was
subsequently dismissed by the learned Appellate Court and hence, the
present petition is filed before this Court.
[49] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reading over
the evidences of all the PWs-1 to 22 and DW-1, has pointed out certain
discrepancies, additions and the omissions made before the Court below at
the time of their depositions and also placed reliance to ventilate the factual
scenario in the light of the map which has been enclosed and marked as
Exbt.3 by drawing attention of this Court towards the staircases and also
pointed out rooms under the category of „A‟ and further submitted that it is a
case where the accused persons were present in front of the Court but he did
not enter into the Court premises and he did not behave with the Court‟s
staffs nor with the District Judge discharge and other officers to attract
Sections-447 and 353 of IPC and relied upon judgments i.e. Amrik Singh v.
State of Punjab, reported in (2022) 9 SCC 402, Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v.
State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2005) 5 SCC 258 and Sukhwant Singh v.
State of Punjab, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 367 on the point of identification
parade and other points. The learned counsel in his arguments condemned
the attack on the institution but at the same time prayed to reduce the
sentence and impose only fine by taking lenient view.
[50] Learned P.P. on the other hand opposes the same and contended
that it is a heinous crime where the accused persons are liable for sentence
and the concurrent findings of both the Courts below needs to be upheld
since the scope of revision is very limited for interference. He also read over
the relevant portions of the evidence such as PW-1 and PW-12 and other and
also placed reliance on many judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court i.e. State
Rep. by Dey. Supdt. of Police, CBI v. V. Jayachandra @ Ezhu Viral and
Others, reported in (1997) 10 SCC 70, Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar,
reported in (2019) 12 SCC 784, Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat
Kumar and Others, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 201, Raj Kumar v. State of
Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 76, Harivadan Babubhai Patel
v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 45, Sadayappan alias Ganesan
v. State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 257,
Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204
and Hebsur Rehman v. State by Hunsur Town Police Station, in case No.
Crl. P. No.5287 of 2022, which is also very relevant to the facts and
circumstances of the case and contends that the petitioners need to be
punished.
"PW-1, Sri Jhuman Das, who is the eye witness and one of the victims of this
case. He has deposed that on 02.09.2015 he was posted as Bench Clerk in the
Courtof the then learned District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ruhidas Pal (PW-
12).On that day a 24 hours strike was called by CPI(M). He came to the Office
on that day at about 9.30 a.m. and was talking with Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik
(PW-21). At about 9.50 a.m. learned Sessions Judge came along with his
Orderly and P.G. and other security. After he entered the Chamber, they were
setting outside and was talking. At that time, three persons came there and
threatened them to leave the Court as a strike was called on that day.
He also deposed that when they were threatening them, one of the staff
namely Nipu Datta informed the matter to the Sessions Judge and when he
came out to enquire the matter, one person among the three namely Tapash
Datta ran towards the Sessions Judgewith an acrimonious gesture and said that
if the Sessions Judge was the „Chamcha‟ of the Hon‟ble the then Chief Justice
Mr. Deepak Gupta. At that time, one staff Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik came and
asked Tapash Dattanot to behave with a judge like that and at that time
another person among the three, Trilokesh Sinha tried to throttle Rabi Ranjan
Bhowmik. He also deposed that, learned Sessions Judge informed them that it
was the kind Order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Tripura to perform work on
that day and at that Tapash Datta tried to physically attack the Sessions Judge,
but the P.G. Mrinal Kanti Dey intervened and another person among the three
Babul Debnath dashed and pushed them and sent them out of the Court and
stopped them from performing their works. He also deposed that he know
Tapash Datta as he was a local leader and later on he came to know the names
of other two persons from the Orderly of learned Sessions Judge namely Asish
Das Gupta. The witness also identified the accused persons by face in the
Court."
" PW-12
PW-12: On 02.09.15 I was posted as District and Sessions Judge, South
Tripura, Belonia. On that day, as like other days before 10'00 a.m I along with
my P.G Mrinal Dey and my orderly Asish Das Gupta entered into the Court
premises and I noticed that two staff of my court namely Jhuman Das and
Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik were sitting under the baniyan tree of the court. Then I
asked them to come inside the office. Thereafter I entered into my official
chamber and were talking with my orderly and P.G and when it was around
10'15 a.m, at that time one of my staff Nipu Datta came running to me and
informed that some picketers came and were threatening the staffs of the
court. Hearing this, I came out of my chamber to enquire about the matter.
Then I saw 6/7 picketers outside my chamber who were threatening the staffs
such as Jhuman Das, Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik and others. Then I asked them as
to what happened. Then among the picketers, three persons came towards me
and out of them one having black complexion told me stooge (chamcha) of the
then Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Dipak Gupta and told me if I am a judge and
whether I adjudicate cases and if I have the guts asked me to adjudicate him,
to which I informed that there is an order of High Court to run the Court even
on the day of strike to which that person became furious. At that time, my
staff Jhuman Das and Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik asked those persons not to
misbehave with me by telling that 1 am a District Judge to which one of the
picketers told him that he knows very well that I am a judge. At that time I
was given guard by my P.G. Out of those persons, one person threatened
Jhuman Das and Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik and told them to leave the Court.
Meanwhile, SDPO, Sudip Pal and O/C, BLN P.S came there and took away
those persons. Then I returned back to my official chamber and informed the
S.P, South Tripura about the incident. Due to the misbehaviour of those
persons, I was dishearten. After the incident I find that most of the staffs of the
Court left the court. Thereafter with one of my staff namely Bijan Pal and with
my PG 1 performed my court works by passing formal orders. I also reported
the incident to the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura. On the following day, from
Jhuman Das, Rabi Ranjan Bhowmik I came to know that the person having
black complexion who misbehaved with me whose name was Tapash Datta
and the name of rest two persons were Trilokesh Sinha and Babul Debnath.
Witness identified the accused Tapash Datta at the dock. Witness could not
identify the rest two accused persons though they are present at the dock."
[51] In State Rep. by Dey. Supdt. of Police, CBI v. V. Jayachandra
@ Ezhu Viral and Others, reported in (1997) 10 SCC 70, wherein, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court observed thus:
"11. The only point which now survives for our consideration is whether the
prosecution has established the offences punishable under Sections 353
and 437, both read with Section 34 IPC. the officers of the c.g.s. Vivek
and INS Kirpan who were insisting upon boarding m.v. „Yahata‟ were
performing their duty as they bona fide believed that they had a right to do so.
They were demanding boarding and the accused were refusing the same. The
firstly denied that the officers of the Public Armed Vessels of the
Government of India, had any right to intercept or inspect their vessel as it
was sailing on high seas beyond 200 nautical miles from Indian baseline.
Thereafter they also stated that they had not denied inspection of their vessel
but had only insisted for a neutral umpire. Though the accused had stated
that they were unjustly forced to take their vessel near the Madras Sea
Coast we do not find any evidence or even suggestion in the cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses that either c.g.s. Vivek or INS
Kirpan had threatned to use Madras Coast. As regards what happened in the
morning of 16.1.93 the defence of the accused was that none of the accused
had fired at the Indian Naval vessels when they were making an attempt to
board their vessel. The evidence of PW9, PW12, PW13, PW14 and PW22 is
to the effect that at about 10.00 A.M. they had started the operation for
boarding M.V.‟YAHATA‟ and INS Kirpan with a view to divert the attention
of the accused. There was retaliatory fire from m.v. ‟Yahata‟. PW22, the
Captain of INS Kirpan has clearly stated in his evidence that in spite of his
direction to M.V.‟YAHATA‟ to bring all their men to fore-peak without
arms and ammunitions and explosives. They came to the aforesaid fore-peak
fully armed. He has also stated that he had noticed ‟RPG LAUNCHER‟
was being trained by the accused against his ship. He has also stated that
when he fired warning shots to make them surrender and divert their
attention for facilitating the boarding operation there was retaliatory fire from
M.V.‟YAHATA‟ . Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of
this witness which would create any doubt regarding his credibility and
reliability of his version. His evidence has been disbelieved by the learned
Designated Judge on the ground that if really the occupants of
M.V.‟YAHATA‟ had in intention to resist boarding by using fire arms they
would not have obeyed the Kirpan to sail towards Madras Coast. The
learned Judge has also disbelieved his evidence because there was no
mention of retaliatory fire from M.V.‟YAHATA‟ in the complaint, Exhibit
P-1 given by PW1 who was then the Captain of INS Savitri and also because
PW1 and PW12 (the Caption of c.g.s. Vivek) had not stated anything about
the retaliatory fire in their evidence before the court. The learned Judge
failed to appreciate that it was decided that INS SAVITRI was to be used
only as a full-fledged hospital vessel in case there were casualties. It is,
therefore, quite likely that he had not noticed retaliatory fire
M.V.‟YAHATA‟. Significantly, he had also not stated in his complaint
anything about the warning shots fired by c.g.s. Vivek and INS Kirpan,
though admittedly, such shots were fired. Therefore, on the basis of the
omission in the complaint, Exhibit P-1 it was not proper to discard the
evidence of PW22. It is quite likely that PW1 and PW12 did not notice the
retaliatory fire from M.V.‟YAHATA‟ because of their respective
positions and because they were engaged in doing their jobs. PW9 has
supported PW22 but the learned Judge discarded his evidence as this witness
had not stated before the police that he had seen any projectile emerging
from M.V.‟YAHATA‟ Having carefully gone through the evidence of this
witness we find that it was not put to him that he had not so stated before the
police. What he has stated in cross-examination is that he had noticed
splash of water on the right side of INS Kirpan and he had also seen the
projectile emerging from M.V.‟YAHATA‟ . The only suggestion put to this
witness was that he had merely suspected firing from M.V.‟YAHATA‟ on the
basis of splash water near INS Kirpan. The learned Judge therefore, not
right in discarding the evidence of this witness who has clearly supported the
evidence of PW22 on this point. PW13 was the Commanding Officer of INS
SD BT. 56. He has also stated that there was retaliatory fire from M.V.
„YAHATA when he was on the deck. He has further stated that seeing the
retaliatory fire he ducked down otherwise he would have been hit. What this
witness has stated in his cross-examination is that "I did not specifically
state in my statement to the C.B.I. Officers that on seeing firing shots
from „M.V. YAHATA I ducked down but I stated that I heard „Phat-Phat‟
sound from „M.V. YAHATA and ducked down which according to me is the
same thing as seeing firing from the „M.V. YAHATA." Evidence of this
witness has been disbelieved on the ground that it was not likely that the
occupants of M.V.„ YAHATA would have ventured to fire at the Indian
Naval ships and also because this witness had not specifically stated before
the police that the shots which were fired by the Indian Naval ships were
warning shots only. These reasons can hardly be regarded as good reasons
for discarding his evidence. So also, it was not proper to discard the evidence
of this witness because PW14 who was also on INS SD BT. 56 did not say
anything in his evidence regarding retaliatory fire from M.V.„YAHATA‟.
From his evidence it clearly appears that he was not even present when the
briefing session for the boarding operation was conducted. Therefore, it is
quite likely that he was assigned some other function and was busy with his
own work when M.V.„YAHATA‟ had fired in retaliation. There is
nothing on record to show that he was with PW13 or on the deck when M.V.
„YAHATA‟ had indulged in retaliatory fire.
12. We have perused the evidence of PW9, PW13 and PW22 closely on this
point and we find no reason to disbelieve the same. The reasons given by the
learned Designated Judge for not believing this part of the prosecution
evidence are not at all proper and sufficient. We, therefore, hold that the
prosecution has satisfactorily established that the accused had used
criminal force against the Indian Naval Officers while they were performing
their duty and that was done with an intention to prevent or deter them
from discharging their duty. They are, therefore, held guilty of having
committed the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC read with Section 34
IPC."
[52] Another case in Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan and Others,
reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1396, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court
held thus:
"20. No doubt statement given before police during investigation under
Section 161 are "previous statements" under Section 145 of the Evidence Act
and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a
limited purpose, to "contradict" such a witness. Even if the defence is
successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the
contradiction in her two statements would result in totally discrediting this
witness. It is here that we feel that the learned judges of the High Court have
gone wrong.
21. The contractions in the two statements may or may not be sufficient to
discredit a witness. Section 145 read with Section 155 of the Evidence Act,
have to be carefully applied in a given case. One cannot lose sight of the fact
that PW-2 Rami is an injured eye witness, and being the wife of the deceased
her presence in their agricultural field on the fateful day is natural. Her
statement in her examination in chief gives detail of the incident and the
precise role assigned to each of the assailants. This witness was put to a
lengthy cross examination by the defence. Some discrepancies invariably
occur in such cases when we take into account the fact that this witness is a
woman who resides in a village and is the wife of a farmer who tills his land
and raises crops by his own hands. In other words, they are not big farmers.
The rural setting, the degree of articulation of such a witness in a Court of
Law are relevant considerations while evaluating the credibility of such a
witness. Moreover, the lengthy cross examination of a witness may invariably
result in contradictions. But these contradictions are not always sufficient to
discredit a witness. In Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, this Court
had held as under:
"24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to
make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making
some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can
successfully make his testimony totally non- discrepant. But courts should
bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are
so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in
jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere
variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the
evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness)
is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny."
[53] Another case in Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar, reported in
(2019) 12 SCC 784, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held thus:
"15. As regards the claim of appellant that nonidentification of the accused
by the witness would not substantiate the prosecution case,
admittedly no prosecution witness has identified the accused appellant
which does not mean that the prosecution case against the accused is on
false footing. As a general rule, identification tests do not constitute
substantive evidence. The purpose of identification test is only to help the
investigating agency as to whether the investigation into the offence is
proceeding in a right direction or not. In our view, non-identification of the
appellant by any prosecution witness would not vitiate the
prosecution case. It is evident from the confessional statement of
the accused that at the time of occurrence he and another accused
Rampati Manjhi were guarding outside the informant‟s house while
other accused were committing dacoity inside. We do not think that there is
any justification to the argument that as none of the prosecution witnesses
could be able to identify the appellant, he cannot be termed as accused.
In our view, such non- identification would not be fatal to the prosecution
case in the given facts and circumstances."
[54] Another case in Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat
Kumar and Others, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 201, wherein the Hon‟ble
Apex Court held thus:
"3. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has
contended that the impugned oder of High Court dated 10.09.1996 has not
only resulted in manifest injustice meted out to the appellant but the same is
patently illegal, improper and unjustified. Mr. Sibal has contended that the law
is well settled about the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article-227 of the Constitution of India and inherent jurisdiction under
Section-482 of Criminal Procedure Code and this Court has clearly indicated
that such jurisdiction is extremely circumscribed.
17. The learned Attorney has also drawn attention to the statement of PW-2
Pandurang Raghunath Kale. The said witness deposed to the following effect:
"Then he (SDM) told me that he had taken charge of the place and he will not
allow the stall to be removed. I again told SDM not to cause obstruction and
allow us to do our work. Then he told me not to wait here. At that time SP
Shri Jog and Rao also came. They also told me to go away.
18. Our attention has also been drawn to the statement of PW-6, Babu
Gangaram Suryavanshi. The said witness has stated:
I am working as Municipal Engineer in Jalgaon Municipal Council. On
03.07.1993 at 7.30am as usual our Encroachment Squad went to remove the
encroachment. Shri V.V. Suryavanshi, Assistant Engineer and Shri S.L. Patil,
Junior Engineer also went to the spot. At around 10.30 am, I got the message
that Baban Baheti had opposed the squad in removing the encroachment and
SDM and police had come to the spot and they are obstructing the removal of
the encroachment. SDM has said that he had taken charge of the place and will
not allow the encroachment to be removed. He told him to go away from the
spot along with his staff. Complainant also asked the collector why he was not
allowing the encroachment to be removed. Complainant asked all of us to
remove the encroachment. We all, staff and Municipal Councilors, started
removing the encroachment. Then the complainant exhorted to remove the
stall but the Collector did not allow the stall to be removed. A very large
crowd had gathered there. The Collector said do not bother about anyone, put
everyone in the van."
[55] Another case in Raj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
reported in (2008) 11 SCC 76, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held thus:
"10. In State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu it was held that the High Court should
not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court
and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no
error of fact or law arrived at by the trial Court or the Sessions Judge."
[56] In Harivadan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in
(2013) 7 SCC 45, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed thus:
"20. In the case at hand, the factum of information related to the discovery of
the dead body and other articles and the said information was within the
special knowledge of the present appellant. Hence, the doctrine of
confirmation by subsequent events is attracted and, therefore, we have no
hesitation in holding that recovery or discovery in the case at hand is a
relevant fact or material which can be relied upon and has been correctly
relied upon.
24. In State of H.P. v. Gian Chand it has been opined that (SCC p.81 para-14)
"14.....non- examination of a material witness is not a mathematical formula
for discarding the weight of the testimony available on record, howsoever
natural, trustworthy and convincing it may be. The charge of withholding a
material witness from the court leveled against the prosecution should be
examined in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case so as
to find whether the witnesses are available for being examined in the court and
were yet withheld by the prosecution."
The three-Judge Bench further proceeded to observe that the court is required
first to assess the trustworthiness of the evidence available on record and if the
court finds the evidence adduced worthy of being relied on, then the testimony
has to be accepted and acted upon though there may be other witnesses
available who could also have been examined but were not examined.
26. In Dahari and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh[16], while discussing about
the non-examination of material witness, the Court expressed the view that
when he was not the only competent witness who would have been fully
capable of explaining the factual situation correctly and the prosecution case
stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence and thetestimony of other
reliable witnesses, no adverse inference could be drawn against the
prosecution. Be it noted, the Court also took note of the fact that during the
cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, none of the accused persons
had voiced their concerns or raised any apprehension regarding the non-
examination of the material witness therein.
27. In the case at hand, it was A-1 who had announced that he was taking the
deceased to the house of Gulia. On a search being conducted, nothing has
been found from the house of Gulia. There has been no cross-examination of
the Investigating Officer about the non-examination of Gulia. On the contrary,
it was A-1 who had led to the discovery of the dead body and other articles.
Thus, when the other evidence on record are cogent, credible and meet the test
of circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Mararashtra[17] State v. Saravanan[18], Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v.
State of Maharashtra[19] and further reiterated in Jagroop Singh v. State of
Punjab[20], there is no justification to come to hold that the prosecution has
deliberately withheld a witness that creates a concavity in the concept of fair
trial.
28. Another facet is required to be addressed to. Though all the incriminating
circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused had been put to him, yet
he chose not to give any explanation under Section 313 CrPC except choosing
the mode of denial. It is well settled in law that when the attention of the
accused is drawn to the said circumstances that inculpated him in the crime
and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives a false answer, the same
can be counted as providing a missing link for building the chain of
circumstances. (See State of Maharashtra v. Suresh[21]). In the case at hand,
though number of circumstances were put to the accused, yet he has made a
bald denial and did not offer any explanation whatsoever. Thus, it is also a
circumstance that goes against him."
[57] In Sadayappan alias Ganesan v. State represented by
Inspector of Police, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 257, wherein the Hon‟ble
Apex Court observed as under:
"13. Criminal law jurisprudence makes a clear distinction between a related
and interested witness. A witness cannot be said to be an "interested" witness
merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. The witness may be called
"interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a
litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished.
[See: Sudhakar v. State, (2018) 5 SCC 435]."
[58] In Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in
(2022) 8 SCC 204, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to
mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two
Courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on
record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed
to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of
interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal
Procedure Code (in short „CrPC‟) vests jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a
patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well founded
error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well
settled that while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at
length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings."
[59] In Hebsur Rehaman v. State by Hunsur Town Police Station
in Crl. P. No.5287 of 2022, the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnatak observed
thus:
"7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the complaint, where the
alleged incident occurred on 01.02.2019 but the FIR was registered on
27.02.2019. The complaint reveals that on 1.2.2019, when the complainant
came to Mini Vidhana Soudha, Hunsur for discharge of her official duty, this
petitioner along with others said to be protested in front of mini Vidhana
Soudha and obstructed from entering into the mini Vidhana Soudha and
thereby, prevented the Authority from discharging the official duty. Hence,
they committed the alleged offence under Section 353 of IPC. Though learned
counsel submits that there was no criminal force as defined under section 350
IPC or an assault as defined under section 351 IPC to attract above offence
and further submits that, except allegation of conducting protest, there is no
CCTV footage. The police during the investigation examined as many as five
eye- witnesses apart from the complainant and other witnesses, who have
corroborated the statement of the complainant and one among them is the
driver of the complainant, who has stated that, he learnt that, accused persons
formed a group and were protesting in front of the entrance gate of Mini
Vidhana Soudha and thereby obstructing entry of officials into the office and
on NC: 2024:KHC:11606 knowing the said fact, the complainant went there
and on her enquiry, it was learnt that, SDPI was holding protest without
obtaining prior permission of any concerned departments and thereby
obstructed officials from entering the office and discharging their official
duties.
8. The petitioner and other accused also said to have abused in filthy language
and protested. The police registered FIR under Section 353 of IPC for
obstructing the public servant and showing the criminal force. Therefore, it
cannot be said that there is no offence under Section 353 of IPC is made out.
If at all no evidence is available regarding commission of offence during trial,
accused persons may seek discharge but have not made out a case for
quashing the criminal proceedings. Therefore, I am of the view, the petition
deserved to be dismissed."
[60] During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners has placed before this Court reliance from the contents which
and the same has been enclosed and further on the same incident which
occurred on 02.09.2015 in respect of Sabroom Court premises which was
factually in a much worse situation then the present case at hand where the
learned Court has confirmed the sentence in criminal revision No.29 of 2020
aggrieved thereby matter has been preferred to the Hon‟ble Apex Court and
the Hon‟ble Apex Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the
punishment and prayed for the same.
[61] Admittedly, on 02.09.2015 CPI(M) has called for a Bharat
Bandh and the accused persons along with several other were also there
infront of the Court premises and obstructing the ingress and egress of the
people and also requested the business establishments in the vicinity upon
their request, they have closed and in the process they have obstructed the
employees entering into the premises and at one point of time they have
entered into the premises which is evident from the evidences of PWs.1, 2,
5, 6, 10, 12, 18 and 21 and also "they have made an attempt to attack the
District Judge and in the process they attempted to throttle the neck and
abuse the District Judge saying stooge (chamcha) of the then Hon‟ble
Chief Justice Mr. Deepak Gupta and told him if he is a judge and whether
he adjudicate cases and if he has the guts asked him to adjudicate him".
Further they restrained the staff from functioning of Court. For proper
understanding, it would be proper to extract the meaning of „Strike‟-
"Strike: Means a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any
industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal, under a
common understanding, of any number of persons who are or have been so
employed to continue to work or to accept employment."
"Bandh: as per Oxford dictionary it is a general strike.
[62] Though the Court premises are a public place but it does not
mean that any person would enter into the Court premises and move freely
according to his will and wish. Reasonably presumed that if a person enter
into the Court premises, he is attending any Court work or communicate his
lawyer in such case, his movement should obviously confined to the place
of restriction i.e. the Court hall and obviously there will be no restrictions for
entering into the advocates‟ bar or using public conveniences. It is the
fundamental right of every citizen to get justice. But, the act of the
petitioners in depicting the citizens and restraining the judicial function is
anti-constitutional.
[63] As it is evident from the sketch map that the accused persons
have entered the area where they were not suppose to and this Court feels
that it is a restricted zone where the accused persons have entered and more
so, when it is a period of „Bandh‟ the accused persons following the dictate
of their party, cannot create a pressure upon the litigants/employees and see
that the Court is became un-function. It is not open for any political party or
its followers to infringing the fundamental rights of the citizens and to make
the Court un-functional.
[64] Section-353 IPC has ingredients of Section-349, 350 and 351
along with Section-21 of IPC. It has not been disputed before learned trial
Court that on 02.09.2015 was not the working day for the Court and for the
functioning the Court, the District Judge along with other staff came to the
Court on their official time. So, although learned counsel Mr. Kabir has
disputed that the Court staff will not be treated as public servant cannot be
accepted because the officers of the Court and staff attended the Court for
discharging their duties in the Court. Although learned counsel has disputed
that Section-447 and 353 of IPC are not being proved. But by reading
cumulatively the sections of the IPC mentioned above this court easily finds
that all the essential ingredients of these two sections are found fulfilled. The
judgments relied by the petitioners‟ side on this point has different facts and
circumstances from the case at hand.
[65] Interestingly, the independent witnesses as discussed above,
have noticed the petitioners with other picketers in front of the Court on the
road on the given date and time. PW-13 saw that picketers were in front of
the Court and they were not allowing the court staff to enter into the Court.
He heard hue and cry inside the first floor of the Court premises. Similarly,
PW-14, PW-15, PW-16 have also corroborated PW-13 on this point. PW-17
noticed that some persons were talking loudly and he got frightened. The
depositions of these independent witnesses are very much relevant under
Section-6 of the Indian Evidence Act as res gestae. Even the DW-1 has
admitted that he saw the accused persons out of the Court and he also saw
the supporters of the strike outside of the Court and they were making
slogan. The independent witnesses have corroborated each other about the
presence of the accused persons in front of the Court with their supporters
and the defence has also admitted this fact. The witnesses from the Court
have noticed these three petitioners in the Court building when the
petitioners were threatening and arguing with the staff and learned District
Judge. At that time hue and cry came from the Court which was heard by the
independent witness. So, the presence of the petitioners in the Court building
is established.
[66] No doubt it appears that the petitioners, as it is admitted by the
defence that the petitioners are known figure and leader of a known political
party gathered in front of the Court with their supporters with a motive to
stop the functioning of the Court works for giving message in the society
that the strike was fully successful. The strike was called by left supported
Trade Unions. The supporters gathered in front of the Court where there is
no any market or other trade related works are conducted. However, the
petitioners along with their supporters assembled in front of the Court and
the petitioners along with their some supporters entered in the Court and
tried to obstruct the functioning of the Court.
[67] In this case the actual victim is the District Court along with the
officers and staff. The petitioners were well aware about the presence of
District Judge in his chamber that is why they directly entered in that
particular portion of the building where the District Judge has his chamber
and Court. The petitioners wanted to pressurize the highest officer of the
Court (the then District & Sessions Judge) to close the functioning of the
Court. A Court is a temple of justice and its functioning is dealt by separate
rules and regulations independent from the other wings of the Government
institutions. The petitioners on 02.09.2015 wanted to close the door of this
temple illegally and for this they entered into the Court premises and started
to threatened staff and directly approached District Judge for their illegal
demand. In a civilized society where we are governed by rule of law, one
cannot be permitted to impose his ideology by applying illegal means and
methods in duress. So, considering the entire evidences on record, this court
is of the opinion that there is no merit in the petitions.
[68] Even in the 313 examinations when specific question were post
from question No.1 to 145 invariably the petitioners except denying the
same has not explained in their defence. Question No.144 when specific
question was asked by the Court whether he has anything to explain to
which, he answered that on 02.09.2015 have not entered into the Court
premises, Belonia, South Tripura. The said answer is also incorrect when
listed in the light of depositions of above witnesses. For the purpose of
reference the relevant question may be extracted hereunder:
Q. No.144. Do you have want to say anything more in this regard?
Ans: On 02.09.2015 I did not enter into the Court premises, Belonia, South
Tripura."
[69] If we go by the word restricted area it is to say that if a person is
invited in a house it does not mean that the invitee is permitted to move
freely and enter into the private areas of the owner‟s house like bedroom,
kitchen, puja area. It is obvious that the invitee‟s movement though he is
invited is only limited to the areas like drawing room and living room but he
cannot barge into the private areas.
[70] The petitioners have abused in filthy language and protested.
FIR has been registered under Section-353 of IPC for obstructing the public
servant and showing the criminal force. Therefore, it cannot be said that
there is no offence under Section-353 of IPC is made out. In the matter like
this where strike/bandh is called by a political party and large gathering is
present restraining the people from entering the Court and not allowing staff
and Judges to perform the judicial work, the situation causes to the judiciary
as a surprise and shock and any minor discrepancies commit be given utmost
importance enabling the accused persons to go free, due to benefit of doubt
or any omissions or improvement in the version of prosecution evidence.
Admittedly, there was a strike, persons trespassed, they restrained the
functioning of Court proceedings, they misbehaved with District Judge and
staff and they were identified. Therefore, prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
[71] The Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).
12069/2022 in an identical incident occurred on the same day i.e. on
02.09.2015 in District & Sessions Court, Sabroom, Tripura State, the Apex
Court has confirmed the conviction of accused persons and punished.
[72] Therefore, this Court is of the view, the present petition
deserved to be dismissed. The judgments cited by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners have no relevance in the facts and
circumstances of the present case for the discussions made above.
[73] In the background of the evidences discussed, admittedly there
was strike infront of the Court premises. It is seen from the evidences of the
other witnesses that the accused persons have entered into the Court
premises and also as per the evidence of the PW-12 the accused persons the
manner in which they behaved causing threat to the independency of the
judiciary and obliterate the majesty of the Judiciary, this Court views the
matter seriously and holds that it needs no interference in the findings
arrived at by the learned Courts below.
[74] It is also seen that as against concurrent findings, the scope of
revision is also very limited and the counsel for the petitioners made all
attempts to re-appreciate the evidences and to draw the discrepancies in
favour of the accused and sought for benefit of doubt, which is not possible.
Accordingly the revisions fail.
[75] The Criminal Revision Petitions for the discussions made above
are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present petitions stand
dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous application pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
T. Amarnath Goud, J
A. Ghosh
ANJAN Digitally signed by
ANJAN GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.08.07
16:33:37 +05'30'
