Tripura High Court
) Sri Mithu Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 23 September, 2019
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.REV P NO.42 OF 2017
1) Sri Mithu Debnath,
S/o- Sri Sadhan Debnath,
Of Old Motor Stand,
P.S.- Dharmanagar, Dist- North Tripura.
..... Convict-Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura.
.... Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Simita Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samrat Ghosh, Addl. P.P.
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment and order : 23.09.2019
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Ms. Simita Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Samrat Ghosh, learned Addl.P.P., appearing for the State-respondent.
2) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging the legality, validity and propriety of the Judgment and order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the learned Page 2 of 5 Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmangar, in Crl. Appeal No.12 of 2016, wherein and whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 04.03.2016 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmangar in Case No.S.T(T-2) 14 of 2015, wherein the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 366, 328 and 346 of IPC and sentenced him under Section 366 of IPC to suffer R.I for 5(five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand), in default to suffer R.I. for 3(three) months, and also sentenced him under Section 328 of IPC to suffer R.I. for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand), in default to suffer R.I. for 3(three) months and further sentenced him under Section 346 of I.P.C to suffer R.I. for 2(years) and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand), in default to suffer R.I. for 3(three) months.
3) The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of an ejahar lodged by one Jhantu Ch. Das, the Officer-in-charge of the Dharmanagar Police Station had registered a case under Section 366(A) and 109 of IPC. In the ejahar dated 19.03.2013, it is stated that a missing dairy was lodged on 13.03.2013 at about 3.00 P.M. In the FIR, it is stated that his minor girl went out for a private tuition and when she did not return upto 6.00 P.M, after an extensive search, he came to know that Mithu Debnath, Abhijit Deb, Kiran Malakar, Suman, Sanju Debnath and Raju Debnath forcefully had kidnapped his minor daughter from Thana Road and on that matter he Page 3 of 5 lodged a missing dairy on 13.03.2013. Accordingly, the Dharmangar P.S. registered a case vide Dharmangar PS Case No.48 of 2013 under Section 366(A)/109 of IPC. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused-persons, namely, Mithu Debnath, Abhijit Deb, Kiran Malakar, Suman, Sanju Debnath and Raju Debnath under Section 366(A), 328, 341, 342 and 34 of IPC.
4) In course of trial, the prosecution had examined as many as nine witnesses to substantiate the case and after recording evidence, the accused were put to examination under Section 313 of CrPC when the instant revision petitioner, Sri Mithu Debnath had pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties, the learned Trial Court had declared conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner, Sri Mithu Debnath as stated above.
5) Being aggrieved, the present petitioner had preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmangar and the learned Sessions Judge also upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2016. Hence this revision petition.
6) In course of hearing of this revision petition, Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to some contradictions between the Page 4 of 5 witnesses. She has also submitted that the incident occurred on 13.03.2013 but FIR was lodged on 19.03.2013. The said delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained satisfactorily by the prosecution. Further, Ms. Chakraborty has submitted that there was loveaffair between the revision petitioner and the girl (name withheld). Lastly, Ms. Chakraborty has submitted that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the period of five years and he already has suffered four years five months and ten days and the remaining period of sentence, according to her, may be set off.
7) Mr. Samrat Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., has submitted that the prosecution case has been proved and there is no such contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and the Court may rely upon the statements of the victim girl. I have gone through the statement of the victim girl. I find, the statement made by the prosecutrix is consistent and trustworthy. Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., however, has submitted in his usual fairness that considering the period of sentence, the petitioner has already suffered, the remaining period of sentence may be set off.
8) Having re-appreciated the evidence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below as I do not find any error of law apparent on the face of the record. This Court will Page 5 of 5 exercise its revisional jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence in detail.
9) However, considering the fact that the petitioner has already suffered four years five months and ten days imprisonment, this Court is of the view that justice would be met if the period of sentence of imprisonment which the petitioner has already undergone may be set off. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence dated 07.11.2016 returned by the Courts below stands modified to the extent that the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner is hereby set off. Having said so, the petitioner is acquitted and set at liberty.
10) With the aforesaid observation and direction, this instant criminal revision petition stands disposed.
11) Send down the L.C.Rs.
JUDGE
Suhanjit