Tripura High Court
Sri Basudeb Jamatia vs The State Of Tripura on 15 May, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.A(J) NO.40 OF 2024
Sri Basudeb Jamatia
...... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Acharjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Mr. R. Saha, Addl. P.P.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 15.05.2025.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This appeal has been filed under Section 374
of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned Judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 29.08.2023 and 31.08.2023, passed by the
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District,
Udaipur, in Case No. S.T(T-1) 12/2022, whereby and whereunder
the appellant has been convicted under Sections 447/307 of the
IPC and Sections 25(1B)/27(1) of the Arms Act.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the
informant, namely Shri Biroj Mohan Jamatia, S/o Late Trishul
Kumar Jamatia of Daluma, P.S. Birganj, District: Gomati, Tripura,
lodged an ejahar on 05.11.2020, alleging inter alia that on the
night of 04.11.2020 at around 8:30 PM, the accused person,
namely Basudeb Jamatia, committed criminal trespass into the
informant's house. After using filthy language, he kicked the door
of the informant's house and then shot at the informant with the
intent to kill him. The informant somehow managed to escape the
bullet. He further alleged that the accused also threatened him
with dire consequences.
3. On the following day, the victim lodged an
ejahar with Birganj Police Station. The police received the ejahar
on 05.11.2020 at around 16:10 hours and registered it as Birganj
P.S. Case No. 2020BRG060 under Sections 448/307/506 of the
IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case was endorsed to SI
of Police, Badal Laskar, for investigation. Cognizance of the
offence was accordingly taken by the Court, and prosecution
papers were supplied to the accused persons.
4. Charges were framed against the accused
persons, namely Shri Basudeb Jamatia and Shri Deb Charan
Jamatia. The contents of the charges were read over and
explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to
stand trial. A total of sixteen witnesses were examined by the
prosecution to prove the charges. After the prosecution evidence
was closed, the accused persons were examined under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating materials against
them. They pleaded total denial and false implication but declined
to adduce any evidence in defence.
5. The learned Trial Court framed the following points
for discussion and decision:
POINTS FOR DECISION:
1) Whether the accused person namely Basudeb Jamatia on or
about 04.11.2020 at about 08:30 pm at Duluma, Purba Tilla,
under PS Birganj, District Gomati, Tripura committed house
trespass by entering into the building of the informant namely
Shri Biraj Mohan Jamatia which used as a human dwelling with
the intent to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment
for life, to wit, attempt to commit murder of the informant by
a fire arms and thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 450 of IPC;
(11) Whether the above named accused person on the same
date, time and place did an act, to wit, shot was fired by an
arms with such intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances that if by that act he had caused the death of
the informant namely Shri Biraj Mohan Jamatia, he would
have been guilty of murder and thereby accused committed an
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC;
(III) Whether the above named accused person on the same
date, time and place committed criminal intimidation by
threatening Shri Biraj Mohan Jamatia with injury to his person
with intent to cause alarm to the said Shri Biraj Mohan Jamatia
and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
506 of IPC;
(IV) Whether the above named accused person on the same
date, time and place acquired in his possession or carried
prohibited arms in contravention of Section 7 of the Arms Act,
1959 and thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959;
(V) Whether the above named accused person on the same
date. time and place used prohibited arms in contravention of
Section 7 of the Arms Act, 1959 and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959;
6. After hearing arguments from both sides, the
learned Trial Court below found the appellant guilty. Accordingly,
convicted the appellant herein as stated herein above.
7. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
29.08.2023 and 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in Case No. S.T
(T-1) 12/2022, the appellant has preferred the present appeal
seeking to set aside the impugned Judgment.
8. Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, and Mr. R. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor,
assisted by Mr. R. Saha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
appearing for the respondent-State.
9. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submitted that there are two accused persons in
the present case and two pistols were allegedly seized from them.
However, P.W.-9 and P.W.-10 have stated that the pistols were
seized from villagers, thereby creating a contradiction in the
prosecution's version regarding the seizure. Learned counsel also
submitted that fingerprints were not collected from the seized
weapons, and there is no expert opinion on the same issue. He
also contended that no injuries were sustained by anyone during
the alleged incident. Thereafter, learned counsel referred to
paragraph 39 of the impugned judgment, which states that the
period of detention undergone by the convict from 25.03.2021 till
the date of sentencing shall be set off as per the provisions of
Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code and submitted that
that the appellant has already suffered imprisonment for a period
of four years and in consideration with his argument, the same be
reduced to the period already undergone in custody.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposed the appeal, submitting that the petitioner does not
deserve any relief and should undergo the sentence as imposed
by the Trial Court. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on
record.
12. As submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for appellant, it is observed from the record that the
appellant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment and he has
already undergone approximately four years in custody.
Paragraph 39 of the impugned Judgment confirms that the
detention period from 25.03.2021 until sentencing shall be set
off.
13. Upon consideration of the above facts, and
noting that there is no prior record of criminal activity against the
appellant and that no injuries were sustained during the incident,
and further considering that the seizure and possession of
weapons and the appellant's fingerprints on the weapon were not
proven beyond reasonable doubt, this Court is of the opinion that
the ends of justice would be served if the punishment of 5(five)
years as given by the Court below to the appellant herein be
reduced to extend he has already undergone in custody.
Accordingly, the same is ordered. The appellant is directed to be
released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
14. With the above observation and direction, this
present appeal stands disposed of. As a sequel, stay granted, if
any stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2025.05.21
SINGHA 13:46:29 +05'30'
