Tripura High Court
Sri Charan Mohan Tripura vs The State Of Tripura on 22 May, 2024
Page 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. A (J) No. 59 of 2023
1. Sri Charan Mohan Tripura,
S/O Sri Chandra Mohan Tripura,
Resident of Village-Badainya Para,
P.S-Gonda Twisa, District-Dhalai,
Tripura, Age-35 years.
2. Sri Utonga Tripura @ Tonga,
S/O Sri Chikanya Tripura,
Resident of Padma Ranjan Para,
P.S-Gonda Twisa, District-Dhalai,
Tripura, Age-30 years.
.......... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Tripura,
(to be represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor,
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura).
.........Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. K Nath, Legal-aid-Counsel.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S Ghosh, Addl. PP.
Fit for Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
22/05/2024
Heard Mr. K Nath, learned legal-aid-counsel appearing
for the appellants and Mr. S Ghosh, learned Addl. PP appearing for
the respondent-State.
2. The appeal arises out of the judgment and sentence
dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhalai,
Ambassa in case No. ST (Type-1) 28 of 2018 whereby and where
under both the appellants were convicted under section 307 IPC
and Section 450 IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
each under both the counts, and in default to pay the fine, to
suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. An oral FIR was lodged by one Smt. Shyamarika
Tripura on 10.03.2018 at Gandacherra Hospital alleging that on
that day at around 9 am when her husband Sri Umesh Tripura was
working on the roadside in front of their house, both the
appellants started assaulting him with catapult and lathi and to
save himself, her husband took shelter in the kitchen of his
maternal uncle, Sri Sushil Tripura. The appellants chased him
there and thrashed him with dao, lathi etc. with a view to kill him
and finally left him there with severe injuries on his face, nose and
ear. Neighbouring people thereafter shifted the victim to
Gandacherra Hospital wherefrom he was shifted to Udaipur
Hospital. It was further stated by the informant that previously, on
04.03.2018 at about 12 pm, both the appellants in search of her
husband entered into her house and took away some coconuts
with them by giving threat to the informant. Thereafter, the said
matter was informed by the victim husband of the informant to
the Gandacherra police station.
4. The ejahar was reduced to writing by SI Nidhiram
Reang who also started investigation on the spot and lateron
being endorsed with the investigation by the Officer-In- Charge of
the police station to continue with investigation, and finally
submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 448/325/307/34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short- IPC) against both the appellants.
The FIR was registered as Gandacherra PS case No. 7 of 2018
under Section 448/326/307/34 of IPC.
5. Ld. Sessions Judge framed charges under section 450
and section 307 read with section 34 IPC. During the trial as many
as 10 (ten) witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the
defendants adduced none.
6. Learned legal aid counsel, Mr. K Nath, appearing for
the appellants submits that there were discrepancies in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses as some of them stated that the
appellants beat the victim with catapult and lathi whereas some
others stated that the appellants used only lathi. Even one
witness also stated about the use of dao by the appellants and
therefore, according to learned counsel, none of the witnesses
were reliable witnesses.
7. Mr. Nath, learned counsel further contended that one
lathi was recovered from the first place of occurrence which was
not the place of the main incident of thrashing. More so, there was
no special identification mark or signature of any witness given in
the said seized lathi and therefore, the said seized lathi could not
be connected with the alleged commission of offences.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that the second
incident allegedly occurred in the house of one Sushil Chandra
Tripura whose wife namely Madhu Bala Tripura (PW-8) stated that
the incident occurred in her kitchen when she was taking her meal
but such fact of taking her meal in the kitchen was omitted in her
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and therefore, she
was also not a reliable witnesses.
9. Next point of argument of Mr. Nath, learned legal-aid-
counsel was that the informant was not conversant with the
Bengali language but FIR was written in Bengali by SI Nidhiram
Reang. There was also no certificate of said police officer as to
how he could understand the language of the informant and could
write it down in Bengali. Moreover, the informant in her cross
examination stated that the scribe of the FIR was one Khadiram
Reang and not Nidhiram Reang, which creates further doubt
regarding the veracity of the prosecution case.
10. Mr. S Ghosh, learned Addl. PP, however, submits that
all the material witnesses corroborated with the victim in respect
of the incident and, therefore, all of them were very much reliable
and learned trial court committed no error in convicting both the
appellants in this case. However, learned Addl. PP, agrees to the
submission of Ld. Counsel Mr. Nath that so far the applicability of
Section 307 IPC is concerned, there is no satisfactory evidence
that such offence was committed by the appellants with the
intention to kill the victim or having the knowledge that by such
an act of the appellants, the victim could be killed and therefore,
the applicability of Section 307 is doubtful in the case. But
according to learned Addl. PP, Section 325 IPC is satisfactorily
established in this case by the prosecution.
11. On perusal of the evidences as surfaced in the record,
it is found that the victim Umesh Tripura (PW-9) in his evidence
stated that on the alleged date of occurrence at about 9 am he
was working in his house and at that time both the appellants had
entered there and attacked him with catapult and hit him on his
left eye and thereafter, to save himself he rushed to the house of
Sushil Tripura. There also the appellants followed him in the
kitchen of the house and hit him with lathi causing injury on his
face and head and, thereafter, he became fainted. According to
him, at the time of incident, the wife of Sushil Tripura, namely
Madhu Bala Tripura was available in the kitchen. He also stated
that he had received treatment at Gandacherra Hospital and then
at Udaipur Hospital and finally, at AGMC and GBP Hospital, where
he was admitted till 26.03.2018 and he received injuries on his
left eye, head, ear and teeth.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not
mention to the investigation officer about the specific portions of
his person where he got injuries or the fact that the wife of Sushil
Tripura was available in the kitchen, at that time. No further
material was found during the cross-examination of this witness.
12. PW-8 namely Madhu Bala Tripura, is the wife of said
Sushil Tripura, who also corroborated with PW-9 stating that on
the alleged date of incident when she was taking meal in her
kitchen and at that time the victim and the appellants entered
there and both the appellants beat the victim in her kitchen with
lathi, causing injury on his eye and therefore, he was shifted to
Hospital. In her cross-examination, it reveals that her statement
that she was taking meal in the kitchen was omitted in her
statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Such omission is
very insignificant.
13. PW-3 namely, Sashangka Tripura also deposed in the
similar line that about one year ago one day at about 9 am he
heard hue and cry and found both the appellants and the victim
were running towards the house of Sushil Tripura. Thereafter, he
also went to that house and found the victim in injured condition.
He also saw both the appellants entering into the house of said
Sushil Tripura with dao and lathi. However, this portion appears to
be result of little bit of exaggeration for mentioning of the word
'dao', but for the said reason, his entire evidence cannot be
discarded.
14. PW-6 namely Sri Sefali Tripura and PW-7 namely
Kumar Ranjan Tripura both stated that while both of them were in
conversation with each other on the relevant date and time, they
found both the appellants chasing the victim towards the house of
Sushil Tripura and they were armed with lathi and thereafter, both
the appellants beat up the victim in the kitchen of Sushil Tripura
and then these witnesses, with other persons of the locality
shifted the victim to Gandacherra Hospital. Nothing came out in
their cross examinations to discard their evidences.
15. PW-2 i.e. the informant Smt. Shyamarika Tripura, also
stated that on 10.03.2018 the appellants came to her house and
attacked her husband and thereafter, chased her husband towards
the house of Sri Sushil Tripura and in the kitchen of the hut of
Sushil Tripura, they beat the victim with lathi and catapult,
causing injury on his eye and ear and thereafter, he was shifted to
Gandacherra Hospital. She also stated about another prior incident
dated 4.3.2018 that on that day the appellants had taken away
coconut from her house and also abused her with filthy languages
when he raised objection thereto. Then she lodged one complaint
at the police station. In her cross examination, she has admitted
that Sushil Tripura was maternal uncle of her husband. She
further stated that one Khadiram Reang reduced her FIR or oral
ejahar into writing, whom she can indentify by face but she didnot
know the exact name.
16. As pointed out by learned counsel Mr. Nath, the word
catapult is used by this witness as one of the weapon of offence
and the name of Khadiram Reang was wrongly introduced by her
as scribe of the FIR and therefore she was not a reliable witness.
However, this Court is of the view that when the witness herself
has stated that she did not know the exact name of the scribe,
therefore such reply in cross examination is not material.
Relationship with the victim also cannot be a ground to disbelieve
a witness. Similarly, use of word catapult by her, even if treated
as little bit of exaggeration, would also not upset her entire
testimony.
17. The medical officer i.e. Dr. Rakesh Majumder (PW-1)
stated that he had found the following injuries while examining the
victim on 11.03.2018 at AGMC and GBP Hospital, viz:
(i) Abrasion over the medial canthas of left eye with peri
orbital echymosis on the left eye. CT scan was done and
fracture was found over the postero lateral wall of left orbit;
and
(ii) Blunt injury (swelling) on the left side middle 3rd face.
Scan report shows left side zygematic process fracture and
frontal process fracture of left maxilla and ethmoid bone.
According to PW.1, the injuries were caused by heavy
blunt type object and were dangerous in nature.
18. One bamboo stick was seized by the investigating
officer, PW-10 from the first place of occurrence which is not the
house of said Sushil Tripura. Therefore, that seizure of bamboo
could not establish the use of the same in respect of the incident
occurred in the second place of occurrence. However, when the
testimony of victim and relevant witnesses were very much
trustworthy and reliable, mere non-recovery of any weapon from
the second place of occurrence will not be fatal for the prosecution
case. Though involvement of both the appellants in beating the
victim is established in the case, but the prosecution could not
prove the fact that the appellants had committed such offence
with the intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that
if death was caused by such acts, they would be guilty of
committing murder. The injuries as inflicted upon the victim also
do not justify any inference to attract section 307, IPC. Learned
Sessions Judge therefore committed fault in convicting the
appellants under Section 307 IPC and under Section 450 IPC.
19. There is no specific evidence of any preparation for
causing harm to the victim by the appellants and no weapon of
offence was also seized from the second place of occurrence.
Therefore, proper provision for convicting the appellant would be
Section 325 IPC and Section 451 IPC. Section 452 IPC can also
not be applied in this case for above said reasons.
20. In view of above, the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence are modified and altered. Both the appellants are
accordingly convicted under Section 325 IPC read with Section
451 IPC with the aid of provisions of sections 221 and 464, Cr.P.C.
21. Both the appellants belong to the Scheduled Tribe
Community hailing from hilly areas. Both are cultivators by
profession shouldered with the responsibility to maintain their
families. Nothing is there that in negative regarding their
antecedents. They are also not educated enough to be capable of
evaluating their each and every act.
22. Considering all these aspects, both the appellants are
sentenced to suffer RI for 3 (three) years under Section 325 IPC
and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default, to suffer further SI
for 30 (thirty) days. Both the appellants are also sentenced to
suffer RI for 1 (one) year under Section 451 IPC and to pay a fine
of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer SI for 15 (fifteen) days. If
the fine money is realized or paid, same shall be handed over to
the victim, Sri Umesh Tripura.
23. Registry shall communicate the copy of the judgment
at the earliest to the learned Trial Court for issuing modified
conviction warrant accordingly by said Court in terms of above
sentences.
Return the LCRs.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Interim application, if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA
Date: 2024.05.29 16:18:04 +05'30'
Satabdi
