[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Revision vs The State Of Tripura on 20 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Petn. No. 62 of 2025
Sri Sudipta Paul,
S/O Sri Keshab Paul,
Resident of Durgapur Madhyapara,
P.S. Rajnagar, Dist-South Tripura,
Pin-799150.
---- Revision Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
2. Sri. Babul Sarkar,
S/o Sri Kshitish Sarkar,
3. Sri Kshitish Sarkar,
S/o Lt. Satish Sarkar,
4. Sri Bapi Sarkar,
S/o Sri Kshitish Sarkar,
5. Smt. Archana Sarkar,
W/o Sri Kshitish Sarkar,
6. Smt. Panna Dey (Sarkar),
W/o Sri Bapi Sarkar,
All are residence of Prakash Nagar,
Rajnagar, PS-PR Bari,
South Tripura.
---- Respondent(s)
For Revision petitioner(s) : Mr. Saugat Datta, Adv.
Ms. Sulagna Nandy, Adv.
For respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, PP.
Mr. Pijush Kanti Biswas, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rishiraj Nath, Adv.
Mr. Pujan Biswas, Adv.
Date of hearing &
Date of delivery of judgment : 20.03.2026
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Saugata Datta and Learned
Counsel Ms. Sulagna Nandy, appearing on behalf of the
petitioner also heard Learned PP Mr. Raju Datta, appearing on
behalf of the State of Tripura. Further heard Mr. Pijush Kanti
Biswas, Learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Learned Counsel Mr.
Rishiraj Nath, appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2-6.
2. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is filed by
the present petitioner challenging the order dated 28.08.2025
passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in
case No. ST(T-II) 17 of 2024. At the time of hearing Learned
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during investigation the
IO of the case failed to record the statement of some of the
material witnesses, namely, 1.Sri. Bapi Das, 2. Smt. Soma Paul, 3.
Sri. Suman Paul and 4. Sri. Sagar Das who are the close relatives
of the deceased and due to non-recording of the statement of
those witnesses and non-citing of those witnesses, as witness in
the chargesheet there is every possibility that the prosecution case
will suffer and the victim would be prejudiced. So the petitioner
filed the application for further investigation under Section 173(8)
of Cr.P.C but the Ld. Court below did not consider the same and for
that the petitioner has been compelled to file this petition before
this Court for setting aside the said order.
3. Learned PP appearing on behalf of the State submitted
that the petition which was rejected by the Learned Trial Court
below was not annexed with the petition filed by the present
petitioner and furthermore, from the petition and the connected
documents nowhere it is found that the names of those persons
to whom the informant intends to rely upon were disclosed
during investigation. Even the informant also has not yet been
examined by the Ld. Trial Court. So in such a situation there is
very less scope to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
accused persons submitted that the petition itself is not
maintainable.
5. Heard both the sides at length.
6. Perused the record.
7. In this case the Learned Trial Court has framed the
charges under Section 498/A & 304/B of IPC against all the
respondents-accused persons and also another alternative charge
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC has been framed
against all the respondents-accused persons by the Ld. Trial Court.
8. By this time evidence of seven numbers of witnesses have
already been recorded by the Ld. Trial Court. Before the Ld.
Jurisdictional Magistrate the IO submitted chargesheet on
03.09.2024 and by order dated 18.09.2024 Ld. CJM, South
Tripura, Belonia took cognizance of offence under Section
498A/306 of IPC against respondent accused Babul Sarkar and
also under Section 498A/109 of IPC against other accused persons
namely Kshitish Sarkar, Smt. Archana Sarkar, Bapi Sarkar, Smt.
Panna Dey Sarkar and Smt. Sabita Sarkar. After that the case was
committed and before the Ld. Trial Court the charge was framed as
stated above.
9. It is surprising that how the petitioner filed the petition for
further investigation before the Ld. Trial Court which was a
Committal Court. At the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the
petitioner could not explain anything in this regard. Furthermore,
until and unless the names of those persons were revealed either
from the evidence any of the witnesses, there is no scope to
consider the same.
10. The petition was filed after a year. By this time evidence of
seven numbers of witnesses have been recorded, the evidence of
informant, i.e. the petitioner Sudipta Paul has not yet been
recorded.
11. Since according to the informant those persons are
material witnesses for decision of the case, so until and unless
their names are revealed from the statement of the informant or
any other material witness there is no scope to call upon those
witnesses for recording their evidence. Even under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. there is scope of issuing summons to any persons or any
witness.
12. The said power also has not been exercised by the
petitioner. Perhaps that situation has not yet arisen. However, the
petitioner ought to have filed the petition before the Ld.
Jurisdictional Magistrate immediately after filing of the chargesheet
which he failed to do and in the opinion of the Court there was no
such scope on the part of the Addl. Sessions Judge to entertain the
petition filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
13. In view of the above, I find no force on the application
filed by the petitioner for want of merit. Accordingly, the same
stands rejected. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file
appropriate petition to the concerned Court, in accordance with
law.
14. Send down the record to Ld. Trial Court along with a copy
of this order so that undue delay can be avoided.
14. With these observations, the present petition is disposed
of.
Pending application(s), if any, stands also disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA
Date: 2026.03.20 17:46:56 +05'30'
Satabdi
