Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Jayanta Chandra Naha on 3 March, 2025
2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. L. P. No.19 of 2024 in Crl. A. No.31 of 2024
The State of Tripura
---- Petitioner(s)
Versus
Jayanta Chandra Naha
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.,
Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
03/03/2025
Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta along with Learned Addl. P.P.,
Mr. Rajib Saha is present for the state-petitioner.
Learned Counsel, Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal is present on behalf of
the respondent-accused.
Heard both the sides.
The state-petitioner has filed an appeal challenging the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.09.2024 delivered by
Learned Special Judge(NDPS), Sepahijala District, Sonamura in
connection with Special(NDPS) No.33 of 2024 under Section
20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act. Along with the memo of appeal,
another application for granting special leave to appeal is
preferred by the state-petitioner.
We have already received the objection submitted on behalf
of the accused.
Taking part in the hearing, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf
of the petitioner first of all drawn the attention of the Court that
Learned Special Judge has mis-interpreted and mis-read the
provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act at the time of delivery of
judgment and also came to an observation that on the basis of
evidence of police personnel there is no scope to convict the
accused. So, Learned P.P. urged for allowing this special leave to
appeal and to allow the prosecution to proceed with the appeal of
this case. In support of his contention, he also relied upon one
citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2020) 9 SCC 627
titled as Rizwan Khan versus State of Chhattisgarh dated
10.09.2020 wherein in para No.12, Hon'ble the Apex Court
observed as under:
"12. It is settled law that the testimony of the
official witnesses cannot be rejected on the
ground of non-corroboration by independent
witness. As observed and held by this Court
in catena of decisions, examination of
independent witnesses is not an
indispensable requirement and such non-
examination is not necessarily fatal to the
prosecution case [see Pardeep Kumar:(2018)
13 SCC 808]"
Referring the same, Learned P.P. fairly submitted that on
close scrutiny of the evidence on record, it will transpire that the
respondent-accused had committed the crime on the alleged date
of the offence but the Learned Trial Court has failed to interpret
the provisions of law and also failed to appreciate the evidence on
record properly and acquitted the accused from the charge
levelled against him on the ground that independent witness did
not support the prosecution story. Rather in view of said
judgment, there is scope on the part of the Court to deliver
judgment of conviction relying upon the evidence of police
personnel.
Per contra, Learned Counsel, Mr. Pal appearing on behalf of
the respondent-accused submitted that there was no infirmity in
the judgment delivered by the Learned Special Judge(NDPS) and
referring the evidences of the witnesses of the prosecution as
annexed with the application, Learned Counsel submitted that on
perusal of the evidence on record, it appears there were huge
lacunas in the prosecution story but the prosecution before the
Learned Court below has failed to discharge his burden by
showing any cogent materials on record and submitted that if at
this stage the appeal is allowed then it would be travesty of justice
and urged for dismissal of the special leave application filed by the
prosecution.
Considered.
I have perused the memo of appeal and also the judgment
delivered by the Learned Special Judge as well as the connected
documents annexed with the application. Also, I have seen the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred by Learned P.P.
appearing on behalf of the State-petitioner.
After considering the materials on record, it appears to this
Court that there are materials for proceeding with the appeal and
accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal filed by the
petitioner-State is hereby allowed.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA -08'00'
Deepshikha
