) Sri Haradhan Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura
2025 Latest Caselaw 1224 Tri

Tripura High Court

) Sri Haradhan Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura on 3 November, 2025

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                    Page 1 of 7




                         HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               AGARTALA
                          CRL.A(J) NO.78 OF 2025

      1) SRI HARADHAN SARKAR, aged about 70 years, son of late Kangali
      Sarkar, resident of Batadhala, P.S.-Sonamura, District-Sepahijala,
      Tripura.

      2) SRI NIRMAL SARKAR, aged about 40. years, son of Sri Haradhan
      Sarkar, resident of Batadhala. P.S.-Sonamura, District-Sepahijala.
      Tripura.

      3) SRI BIPLAB SARKAR, aged about 30 years, son of Sri Haradhan
      Sarkar, resident of Batadhala, P.S.-Sonamura, District-Sepahijala,
      Tripura.

                                                       .......APPELLANTS

                                           versus

      THE STATE OF TRIPURA

                                                       ......RESPONDENT

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. R. Nath, Advocate.

Mr. P.Biswas, Advocate.

Mr. J. Rahaman, Advocate.

Mr. S. Tripura, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s)               : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
                                      Mr. R. Saha, Addl. P.P.

Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order                    : 03.11.2025

Whether fit for reporting           : YES.


               HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
                  J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)

1. This present appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 14.08.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala Judicial District, Sonamura, in Case No.

S.T. (T-1) 08 of 2022, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala Judicial District, Sonamura, convicted the appellants for committing offences punishable under Sections 325, 307, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. They were further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. They were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for 7 (seven) days for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2021, one Smt. Adarani Bala Sarkar lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in- Charge of Sonamura Police Station alleging, inter alia, that the accused persons, namely, Biplab Sarkar, Nirmal Sarkar, Haradhan Sarkar, and Amal Sarkar, took her son, Bhulu Sarkar, to the house of Amal Sarkar, who was at that time in Batadhala Market at about 9:00 p.m. Her son was assaulted with an iron rod, causing injuries to his nose, mouth, legs, chest, abdomen, and head. Due to the said assault, her son sustained bleeding injuries and three teeth were broken. It was further alleged that Indrajit Sarkar and Rupan Sarkar, after witnessing the incident, tried to save her son from the assault of the accused persons. Her son was taken to Motinagar Hospital for treatment, from where he was shifted to Melaghar Hospital and thereafter to GBP Hospital, Agartala.

3. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the Officer-in- Charge of Sonamura Police Station registered a case against the appellants vide Sonamura P.S. Case No. 24 of 2021 dated 03.03.2021 under Sections

341, 325, 326, 307, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the FIR, the police started investigation and, after completion of investigation, filed Charge Sheet No. 56 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021 under Sections 341, 325, 307, and 34 IPC against the appellants. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala Judicial District, Sonamura, for disposal in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge, after perusal of the papers submitted by the prosecution and after hearing both sides, framed charges against the appellants under Sections 325, 307, 341, and 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses, who were also cross-examined. After recording and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they declined to adduce any defence evidence. Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned trial court, by its judgment dated 14.08.2025, convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 325, 307, and 341 IPC, and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months under Section 325 IPC; further sentenced them to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (five) years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months under Section 307 IPC; and also fined them Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 7 (seven) days under Section 341 IPC, with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala Judicial District, Sonamura, the appellants have preferred this instant Criminal Appeal seeking to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Case No. S.T. (Type-1) 08 of 2022.

6. Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Tripura, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as well as Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent.

7. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the accused persons assaulted the victim with a wooden file and an iron rod, which stands proved through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. P.W.-3, the victim himself, clearly stated that the appellants tied him with a rope and assaulted him with those weapons. His testimony is duly corroborated by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. Hence, the learned Addl. P.P. contends that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is just, proper, and based on sound appreciation of evidence, warranting no interference by this Court.

8. Conversely, Mr. Biswas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that the ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence. According to the injury report, there is only one injury caused by a blunt object; however, an iron rod, as alleged, cannot be considered a blunt object. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution's version that the victim was repeatedly assaulted by three persons using both a wooden file and an iron rod. The learned counsel further submits that the prosecution witnesses, particularly P.Ws. 1, 2, and 3, have not explained how the injury was actually caused or which accused inflicted it. This, according to him, creates serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case.

9. To properly adjudicate the evidence, let us examine the depositions of P.Ws. 1, 2, and 3.

9.1. P.W.-1, Sri Indrajit Sarkar, deposed that he knew the accused persons, namely, Haradhan Sarkar, Nirmal Sarkar, Biplab Sarkar, and Amal Sarkar (now deceased). He further deposed that on 01.03.2021 at

about 9:00 p.m., while he was in Batadula Market, the accused persons took Bhulu Sarkar to the house of Amal Sarkar situated nearby. Soon after, he heard a hue and cry from that house. He and Rupan Sarkar rushed there and saw the accused persons jointly assaulting Bhulu Sarkar with an iron rod and a wooden piece. The victim was tied up by the accused. On seeing them, the accused fled away. They then shifted Bhulu Sarkar to Matinagar Hospital, from where he was taken to Melaghar Hospital, and later referred to GBP Hospital, Agartala. Police later seized one wooden piece, one plastic rope, and one iron rod from Amal Sarkar's house in his presence, and he signed the seizure list as a witness.

During cross-examination, he stated that the distance between Batadula Market and his house was about 50 meters, and the house of Amal Sarkar was also about 50 meters away. He saw the accused taking Bhulu Sarkar by the light available in the market.

9.2. P.W.-2, Sri Rupan Sarkar, deposed that he knew the accused persons, namely, Haradhan Sarkar, Nirmal Sarkar, Biplab Sarkar, and Amal Sarkar (now deceased). He stated that on 01.03.2021 at about 9:30-10:00 p.m., while he was at Batadula Market, he heard a hue and cry from the house of Amal Sarkar. He rushed there and saw all the accused persons jointly assaulting Bhulu Sarkar with an iron rod and a wooden piece. The victim was tied with a rope. When they tried to save Bhulu Sarkar, the accused fled away. Bhulu sustained severe injuries and was shifted by them to Matinagar Hospital, then to Melaghar Hospital, and subsequently referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala. On 03.03.2021, police recovered one wooden file, one rope, and one iron rod from Amal Sarkar's house and seized them in his presence.

During cross-examination, he stated that the distance between his house and Batadula Market was about 500 meters, and between Batadula Market and Amal Sarkar's house about 50-60 meters.

He added that many persons usually gathered at Batadula Market in the evening.

9.3. P.W.-3, Sri Bhulu Sarkar, deposed that he knew the accused persons, namely, Haradhan Sarkar, Nirmal Sarkar, Biplab Sarkar, and Amal Sarkar (now deceased). On 01.03.2021, around 8:00-8:30 p.m., he went to Batadula Market. Around 9:00-9:15 p.m., when he was returning home, the accused persons forcibly took him to the house of Amal Sarkar. There, they tied him with a rope and assaulted him with a wooden file and an iron rod. On his raising hue and cry, Indrajit and Rupan Sarkar arrived, whereupon the accused fled. He was taken to Matinagar Hospital, then to Melaghar Hospital, and later referred to GBP Hospital, Agartala, where he underwent an operation and remained admitted for about 25 days.

During cross-examination, he stated that the distance between Batadula Market and Amal Sarkar's house was about 50-60 meters, with two houses in between, and other houses situated about 100- 150 meters away.

10. Having heard both sides and perused the entire record, this Court finds that although the prosecution has alleged a joint assault by three persons, the medical evidence reflects only a single injury caused by a blunt object. The testimony of P.W.-3, the victim, does not specify which accused was holding which weapon, whether the wooden file or the iron rod, nor who delivered the actual blow. When two weapons and three accused are alleged but only one injury is found, such ambiguity in the prosecution evidence necessarily creates reasonable doubt. In view of this doubt, and considering that the essential ingredients of Sections 307 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC have not been conclusively established, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the appellants are acquitted of all charges.

11. In view of the above, the benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. As a sequel, any interim stay stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.

DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J

suhanjit

SABYASAC Digitally signed by SABYASACHI GHOSH

HI GHOSH Date: 2025.11.07 11:52:26 +05'30'