Tripura High Court
Hashi Dey vs The State Of Tripura on 16 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 TRI 144
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page - 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Rev. P. 28 of 2015
Hashi Dey
W/o Sri Subhash Dey
Resident of Ramendra Nagar,
Sabroom, P.S. Sabroom, District- South Tripura.
---- Petitioner(s).
Versus
The State of Tripura
---
Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : None.
Whether fit for reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order (Oral)
16/07/2018
This is a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.09.2014 delivered by the learned Sessions Ju dge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Crl. A. 22(2) of 2014 whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08.05.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sabroom, South Tripura in case No. PRC 57/2011 convicting the revision petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 325/323/506/34 IPC.
The facts, in brief, of the instant revision petition are that one Ratna Das lodged an FIR against the petitioner and her son that they attacked and gave blow with bamboo stick on her hand, ear and head when the complainant went to Page - 2 of 5 save him, the petitioner and her son attacked the complainant and assaulted her and snatched away two gold ear rings and one silver chain. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered a case being Sabroom P.S. Case No. 26/2011 under Sections 447/325/379 IPC. After investigation, the IO filed the charge sheet against the present petitioner and her son under Sections 323/325/506/34 IPC.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sabroom, South Tripura took cognizance of the case and registered it as PRC 57/2011 wherein the learned court framed charges against the petitioner and her son under Sections 323/325/506/34 of the IPC.
After having considered the evidence on record, the learned trial court passed its judgment on 08.05.2014 convicting the petitioner and sentencing her to undergo SI for a term of six months for the offence committed under Section 325/34 IPC along with fine of Rs.500/-, a sentence of SI for a term of two months from offence under Section 323/34 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/- and further a fine of Rs.500/- for offence committed under Section 506/34 IPC, i.d. to undergo SI for 15 days.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment of sentence dated 08.05.2014 the present revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur and the same was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 22/2014. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the Page - 3 of 5 parties was pleased to allow the appeal partly and set aside the sentence under Section 325/34 read with Section 34 and under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC but upheld the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and directed to pay fine money vide judgment dated 04.09.2014. Having no other alternative the present petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 04.09.2014.
Heard Mr. S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel and Mr. H Debbarma, learned amicus curiae appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and her son have been implicated for commission of the aforesaid offence and after considering the evidence on record the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused, Pintu Dey, who is the son of the present petitioner, with a fine of Rs.500/- only under Section 323/34 IPC IPC while Hasi Dey, the present petitioner, has been convicted under Sections 323/325/506/34 IPC.
That apart, learned appellate court after considering the evidence on record has acquitted Pintu Dey. It is submitted that the son of the present petitioner, Pintu Dey who was one of the accused, paid the fine amounting to Rs.500/- only. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that both the persons were involved in the same offence and the learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered that the present Page - 4 of 5 petitioner, being the mother of Pintu Dey, was entitled to get the similar treatment.
I have perused the evidence on record and the judgment of both the courts below. I find that there were some eye witnesses who were also injured due to scuffling between the accused-persons and the complainant but none of the injuries were fatal in nature. There is no evidence that any sharp weapon was used at the time of scuffling. As such, no offence under Sections 325 IPC is made out. Also there is no evidence of any sort of criminal intimidation being committed by the petitioner and so, according to this Court, no offence under Section 506 IPC is made out.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aspect that one of the accused Pintu Dey has been fined with Rs.500/- only and considering the fact that the present petitioner is a house wife aged about 48 years, this Court is of the opinion that a fine of Rs.1,000/- may be imposed on her as sentence for committing offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC. The fine money of Rs.1,000/- so imposed upon the accused-petitioner shall be paid to the complainant- victim.
Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.09.2014 delivered in Crl. A. 22(2)/2014 by the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur is hereby modified and the present petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- only, for committing offences punishable under Sections 323/34 i.d. to undergo SI for 15 days. The said fine Page - 5 of 5 money of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) shall have to be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment in favour of the complainant Smt. Ratna Das as indicated above.
As the petitioner is on bail, on payment of the fine money, her bail bond and surety, if any, shall stand discharged. In case of non-payment of the fine money, the trial court shall take appropriate steps to take the petitioner in custody and suffer the period as sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the revision petition is partly allowed and thus disposed of. Send down the LCRs.
JUDGE lodh