[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Tripura High Court

Farid Uddin Alias Farij Uddin vs The State Of Tripura on 16 December, 2025

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
           CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 27 OF 2025

1. Farid Uddin alias Farij Uddin, aged 75 years,
S/o Lt. Kurban Ali, R/o Sabajpur, Ward No.7,
District-North Tripura.

2. Md. Jalil Uddin (38 years),
S/o Md. Farid Uddin alias Farij Uddin,
R/o Sabajpur, Ward No.7,
District-North Tripura.
                                                     ---Convict-Petitioners.
                                     Versus
The State of Tripura.

                                                            ---Respondent.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

For the Convict-petitioners : Ms. Saswati Nag, Advocate.

For the Respondent               : Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
Date of Argument                 : 26.09.2025
Date of delivery of Judgment
and Order                        : 16.12.2025

                                       YES NO
Whether fit for reporting        :
                                                


                         JUDGMENT & ORDER

This revision petition has been filed challenging the

judgment and order dated 10.04.2025, passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2024,

whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st

Class, Dharmanagar, in Case No. PRC (WP) 130 of 2022, convicting

both the convict-petitioners [here-in-after referred to as the 'petitioners']

for committing offence punishable under Sections 326/34 of IPC and

sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay

a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for one month further.

2. Brief fact of the prosecution case is that the victim, Md.

Gyas Uddin, is the son of the petitioner, Farid Uddin and full blood

brother of another petitioner, Jalil Uddin. He lodged the FIR on

23.07.2022 alleging that on that day, at about 7:30 pm, when he was on

the roadside in front of his house, his said father and brother inflicted

'dao' blows on him. He collapsed on the ground with bleeding injuries

and thereafter they also assaulted him indiscriminately with sticks. The

locals called the Fire Service by which he was taken to Dharmanagar

District Hospital, wherein he got treatment.

3. The charges against both the petitioners were framed under

Sections 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 506 of

IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. No conviction was rendered upon the

petitioners under Section 506 of IPC.

4. The prosecution, during trial, examined total 13 witnesses

who are the victim (PW-1), his mother (PW-2), wife of the petitioner

Jalil Uddin (PW-3), uncles of the victim (PWs 4 and 5), Medical Officer

(PW-6), Fireman (PW-7), co-villagers (PWs 8, 9 & 10) and the rest three

witnesses i.e. PWs 11, 12, & 13 were the police officials.

5. PW-1, the victim, Md. Gyas Uddin in his evidence,

categorically stated that on the said date and time, on Tongibari-Sabajpur

road, he was proceeding to the market from his house and when he

reached closer to the house of his brother (petitioner No.2), both his

father and the said brother had assaulted him physically by machete and

lathi. He suffered grievous injuries on his head, face, cheek and right

shoulder. On his outcry, the neighbouring people gathered on the spot

and then he was taken to Dharmanagar District Hospital and from there

he was shifted to AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala, where he was

admitted for about one month.

In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the petitioner

No.2 was residing in his father's house where his parents were also

residing. He also stated that there was a dispute between them relating to

the property but when his parents started living with his said brother,

there was no dispute between them at that time.

6. PW.2, Mst. Razia Begam, the mother of the victim i.e. the

wife of the present petitioner No.1 though divulged in her evidence that

after she went to the place of occurrence, she found the victim in a pool

of blood and was bleeding but she did not support the prosecution case.

Therefore, she was declared hostile by the prosecution. She also admitted

that at that time she was residing with the petitioners. She also admitted

that the victim used to create disturbances for property.

7. PW-3, Mst. Anuwara Khan is the wife of the petitioner No.2

and she was also similarly declared hostile by the prosecution as she did

not support the prosecution case.

8. The wives of both the petitioners, who were not likely to

support the prosecution's version, were made witnesses in this case by

the investigating officer. Therefore, it creates doubt as to the impartiality

of the investigating officer in conducting the investigation.

9. PW-4, Heyder Ali, and PW-5, Salman Ahamed, both stated

that the present petitioners had assaulted the victim with a lathi and

machete and inflicted blows by way of said machete. From the evidence

of PW-5, it appears that he is a hearsay witness but it is not clear as to

whether PW-4 was an eyewitness or not. Both happen to be the uncles of

the victim. Nothing was revealed in their cross-examinations to discredit

them.

10. PW-7, Hiran Kr. Debbarma is a Fireman, who stated that on

the said date of incident, he along with his other colleagues shifted the

victim in bleeding condition to the Dharmanagar District Hospital.

11. PW-8 Gouranga Das, the co-villager, stated that when he

was proceeding towards his own shop near Sabajpur mosque, he found

the victim lying in injured condition. He heard from the crowd that the

present petitioners had caused such injuries. He admitted that he did not

see the incident.

12. PW-9, another co-villager, namely, Askar Ali stated that

atthe relevant point of time, he was sitting in his shop and at that time

two persons, namely Abdul Malik and Abdul Noor arrived there and

informed him that the victim was being severely assaulted by the

petitioners. Then, he went to the spot and found Gyas Uddin in injured

condition lying on the road and thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital.

In his cross-examination, he stated that there were many

persons present in the place of occurrence at that time.

13. PW-10, Md. Ahad Uddin, another co-villager, also stated

that on the relevant date and time, when he was proceeding towards the

market, he found a huge gathering near Sabajpur mosque and learnt that

the victim was severely assaulted by the petitioners. He also found the

victim lying with injury over his head and thereafter, the Fire Service

personnel shifted him to the hospital. He stated in his cross-examination

that his house is situated at a distance of 250 meters from said mosque.

He also heard that there were disputes between the victim and the

petitioners and many cases among themselves were filed earlier.

14. PW-6, Dr. Asis Das Kanango, the Medical Officer of

Dharmanagar District Hospital, stated that on 23.07.2022, he examined

the victim in the hospital, having been brought by the Fire Service

authority, and found two incised wounds with active bleeding in the

skull; one lacerated injury on the skull; and a fracture of the bilateral

parietal bone of the head of the victim, as was detected in the CT scan.

Thereafter, the victim-patient was referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital

for further treatment. PW-6 opined that all the injuries, except the

fracture in the skull, were simple, and the skull fracture was grievous in

nature.

15. As indicated earlier, the evidences of PWs 11, 12, and 13

are of the police officials who were connected with the investigation and

therefore, further references of those evidences are not being made

herein.

16. From the cross-examination of I.O., defence tried to show

that three neighbouring persons, namely, Muzibur Rahaman, Farij Uddin

and Sukkur Ali were not examined by the I.O. who were the residents in

close proximity to the place of occurrence.

17. PW-13 who is the second I.O. admitted in his cross-

examination that no weapon of offence was seized by him and he also

did not record the statements of the wife of the victim, though they

examined the wives of the petitioners.

18. Learned counsel, Ms. Saswati Nag for the petitioners

submits that there was previous enmity between the parties and therefore,

the possibility of false implication is there. Learned counsel also argues

that the charges were not framed properly in this case and according to

her, said charges ought to have been framed separately for each of the

petitioners and one cannot be asked to answer for another and even no

signature was taken on the second page of the charge. However, learned

counsel admits that said issue was not raised before the appellate court

during the hearing of the appeal.

19. Learned counsel, Ms. Nag also contends that the

examination of the petitioners under Section 313 CrPC was not done in a

proper manner. However, she did not press that plea to avoid remand of

the case on that ground.

20. Learned counsel emphasized her argument that according to

the Medical Officer and also as per the injury report, said fracture injury

was grievous in nature and could be caused by either blunt or sharp

object and therefore, the medical officer was not sure about the nature of

weapon. Therefore, according to learned counsel, in absence of concrete

evidence in this regard, benefit ought to have been given to the

petitioners. Learned counsel also raises the issue that no weapon of

offence was recovered and no eyewitness of the incident except the

victim was examined, though so many persons were present in the place

of occurrence at that time, as according to PW-9, he found many people

gathered in the place of occurrence as 'Namaz of Magriv' had just ended

at that time.

21. Learned counsel, Ms. Nag also relies on a decision of

Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gangaram Vs. State [equivalent

citations 1968 CRILJ 134]. In that case, in a trial under Section 307 of

IPC, the Rajasthan High Court while appreciating the evidence of doctor

observed that according to the said doctor, the injury might be considered

grievous on the ground that it had endangered the human life but, how it

endangered the human life was not brought out in the statements of

doctor. The surgeon who conducted surgery was not examined in that

case and the documents of such surgery were not placed in the record. In

that contexts, the High Court observed that the opinion expressed by said

medical officer that the injury might be considered as grievous one,

could not carry conviction. As it appears, said decision was rendered in

different contexts.

22. Learned counsel also relies on another decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar Vs. State [NCT of Delhi], 2023

SCC OnLine SC 609], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding

examination of accused under Section 313 CrPC observed that the

incriminating materials should be put to the accused so that the accused

get a fair chance to defend himself. However, as the said plea of

improper examination of accused under Section 313 CrPC is not pressed

during hearing of the present case, further discussion on this point is

delved upon.

23. Ms. Nag, learned counsel further relies on another decision

of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naresh Jamatia alias

Afulu & Ors. Vs. the State of Tripura in Criminal Appeal (J) 22 of

2015, decided on 28.02.2019. In the said case, there were three accused

persons and learned Presiding Judge framed charges under Section 6 of

POCSO Act against two accused persons for committing rape on one

victim and another accused was charged separately for committing rape

on another victim along with earlier said two accused persons and one

Ganja Kumar Jamatia. The first charge was not read over to one accused,

namely, Raj Kishore Jamatia and the second charge was not read over to

accused persons, namely, Naresh Jamatia and Ananda Jamatia. In that

situation, the High Court observed that when the appellants were

convicted for committing rape on both the victims and the appellants also

claimed prejudice, there was substantial infringement of their rights for

violation of provision of Sections 211, 212, and 213 of the CrPC.

24. The error which was committed in that case while framing

the charges is not noticed in the present case.

25. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Rajib Saha submits that the victim

has categorically stated the detailed narration of the incident and his

evidence could not be shaken during cross-examination by the defence

and therefore, according to learned Addl. P.P., the law is also well settled

that on the sole testimony of the victim, the accused can be convicted. He

further submits that the medical evidence also supported the victim's

version. Regarding the point raised about alleged error in framing of

charges, learned Addl. P.P. referring to Section 223 of the CrPC submits

that even if it is presumed that some defect is found in framing the

charges, no prejudice has been caused to the accused persons and

therefore, the point as raised from the side of the petitioners had no

bearing in the decision-making process of the learned Courts below.

However, learned Addl. P.P. admits that in view of the medical opinion,

the conviction under Section 326 of IPC is required to be modified to a

conviction under Section 325 of IPC.

26. Learned Addl. P.P. also submits that re-appreciation of

evidence is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction by the High Court

when the learned Courts below have examined the evidences and

concurred with each other that the guilt of the petitioners was proved

beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. Unless there is any illegality and

irregularity committed by the learned Courts below, it will not be

appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the findings as rendered

by the learned Courts below. The High Court only exercises its

supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature while dealing with revision

petition.

In support of his contention, learned Addl. P.P. relies on the

following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

I. Dhuli Vrs. Delhi Administration, 1975 Legal Eagle (SC) 257;

II. Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2001 Legal Eagle (SC) 1428; and III. Jagannath Choudhury & Ors. Vrs. Ramayan Singh & Anr., 2002 Legal Eagle (SC) 577.

27. The Court has given due consideration to the submissions of

learned counsel for both sides and also has meticulously gone through

the record. So far the argument raised by learned counsel of the

petitioners that there were defects in framing of charges, this Court finds

that both the petitioners were jointly charged for commission of the

offence under Sections 326/343 of IPC and also under Section 506/343

of IPC and the necessary facts related to the accusation in respect of

those offences with reference to date, time and place of said commission

were also properly mentioned in the charges. The argument that said

charges ought to have been typed separately for two accused persons in

separate papers and that in the second page of the papers containing such

charges, the signatures of the petitioners is not taken, are too technical to

appreciate when no prejudice is found to have been caused to the

petitioners by framing of said charges. Moreover, missing of signatures

on the second page appears to be an accidental slip which occurred due

to clerical mistake.

28. Though it was argued that despite presence of several

persons, no other eyewitnesses were examined in this case, the principle

of law is settled that even on the sole testimony of the victim, the

conviction can be maintained if he/she is found to be a completely

reliable witness.

29. Reference may be made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court, rendered in Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of Punjab, (2009) 9

SCC 719, wherein the Apex Court held that deposition of injured witness

should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his

evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies. The

relevant paragraphs Nos. 28 & 29 of the said decision are reproduced

here-under:-

"28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp(3) SCC 235 this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.

29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon [vide Krishan v. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459]. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below."

30. Here, in this case, the testimony of the victim is found to be

trustworthy and reliable inspiring confidence as he is the injured witness.

Nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination to discredit his

testimony. More so, the witnesses who came to the spot just after the

incident also supported the fact that they found the victim lying on the

road in bleeding condition with such injuries and they heard that the

petitioners were responsible for the same. The medical evidence also has

supported the prosecution story. Therefore, the conviction as rendered by

the learned Courts below is found to be proper. However, it is a fact that

the medical officer could not ascertain as to whether the grievous injury

i.e. fracture injury in the skull was caused by a blunt weapon or sharp

cutting weapon. Here, according to the prosecution story, both the blunt