Tripura High Court
Sri Partha Das vs The State Of Tripura on 26 November, 2021
Author: S. G. Chattopadhyay
Bench: S. G. Chattopadhyay
Page - 1 of 11
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019
Sri Partha Das,
Son of Late Bhuban Chandra Das,
Of Vill. South Chandrapur, P.S : R. K. Pur,
Udaipur, District : Gomati Tripura.
............... Petitioner(s).
Versus
The State of Tripura
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Tripura, Agartala.
............... Respondent(s).
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Public Prosecutor.
Date of hearing : 8th September, 2021.
Date of Judgment & Order : 26th November, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
This criminal revision petition is directed against the
impugned judgment and order dated 24/5/2019 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur by his judgment dated 02.02.2017 in Case No. PRC(WP) 03 of 2016 whereby and whereunder petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to R. I for one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation and he Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019.
Page - 2 of 11 was further convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to R.I for three months and fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation. [2] Prosecution case as alleged in the FIR in brief is that in the evening of 24.09.2015 accused armed with a dao appeared in front of the house of the first informant and abused her with filthy language. He also terrorised the first informant by saying that he would commit rape on her. She then went to the nearby field where her mother-in-law was working. She informed her mother-in-law about the conduct of the accused. When she accompanied by her mother-in-law was returning home, the accused stood on their way. Her husband also appeared there. Accused caught hold of her husband and chopped him with a dao on several parts of his body. When the first informant tried to prevent the attack on her husband by catching hold of the dao, accused turned to her and assaulted her. He tore her saree and blouse and also "pressed on her chest with his fingers". Following their cry the local people appeared for their rescue and the accused fled. Initially she met the village head for redress. Having no response from him she lodged the FIR on 28.09.2015 with the Officer-in-Charge of the Women Police Station at Udaipur. About delay in lodging the FIR she explained that for her engagement in the treatment of her injured husband, lodging of FIR was delayed.
[3] Based on her FIR, R.K.Pur Women P.S case No. 2015/WRP/096 under Sections 341,354,323 and 506 IPC was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet punishable under Sections 341, 354, 323 and 506 IPC.
Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019.
Page - 3 of 11 [4] Having received the charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence and summoned the accused. Trial commenced in his Court with the framing of the following charges against the accused:
"Firstly, that on 24.09.2015 at about 5 pm at Tetuatilla under R. K. Pur PS you wrongly restrained the informant and her husband on a public way and thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/s.341 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, that on the same date, time and place you voluntarily caused hurt to the husband of informant by fist and blows and thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/s.323 IPC and within my cognizance, Thirdly, that on the same date, time and place you used criminal force and assaulted the complainant with an intention to outrage her modesty or knowing that you would thereby outrage her modesty and thereby, you have committed an offence punishable u/s. 354 or IPC and within my cognizance and Lastly, on the same date, time and place you threatened and committed criminal intimidation to the complainant and her husband thereby, you have committed an offence punishable u/s.506 of IPC and within my cognizance.
And, I do hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges by this Court"
Accused petitioner pleaded not guilty to all the charges and desired to stand the trial.
[5] In the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses including the first informant, her husband, mother-in-law and neighbours. Apart from adducing their ocular testimony prosecution relied on as many as eight exhibits (Exbt.1 to Exbt.8/1) and one material object (Exbt.M.O-1) in order to establish its case against the accused petitioner. Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019.
Page - 4 of 11 [6] The incriminating materials appearing from evidence were explained to the accused in the manner provided under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He made a plain denial of the prosecution case. No defence case was projected by him and no witness was examined on his behalf. [7] At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court on appreciation of evidence and on consideration of the submissions made at the Bar held that charges under Sections 447 and 506 IPC were not proved against the accused petitioner. He was therefore, acquitted of these charges. The trial Court however, held that chares under Section 323 and 554 IPC were proved against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted for the said offences and he was sentenced to R.I for one year and a fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and he was also sentenced to R.I for three months and a fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
[8] Aggrieved petitioner filed appeal against the judgment of the trial Court in appeal. The learned Sessions Judge found no fault with the findings of the trial Court and accordingly affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner without modification. [9] Appearing for the petitioner Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned advocate contends that the first informant improved and exaggerated her statement during trial. Counsel submits that there was a long standing dispute between the parties and case and counter case arising Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019.
Page - 5 of 11 from the same incident were filed. It is contended by Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel that husband of the first informant received mild injuries during scuffling with the accused in the midst of a hot altercation between them which does not entail any penal consequence. With regard to Section 354 IPC, counsel submits that evidence of the first informant is quite doubtful and she brought the charge of outraging her modesty with a view to strengthening her case against the accused. Counsel therefore, urges the Court to set aside the judgment and conviction of the petitioner by allowing his petition.
[10] Mr. R. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that case against the petitioner has been proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. There is therefore, no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. Counsel therefore, urges the Court to dismiss the criminal revision petition. [11] As discussed, among the prosecution witnesses, PW-1 is the first informant who set the law in motion by lodging an FIR she stated that accused chopped her husband with a dao which caused severe injuries to his person. She further alleged in her FIR that when she went to prevent the attack on her husband accused had thrown away the dao and jumped on her. He tore her saree and blouse and "pressed on her chest with finger nails". During investigation she was produced before a Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164(5) Cr. P.C. Her Statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr. P.C differs from her FIR statement on material points. In the said statement she stated that her Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019.
Page - 6 of 11 family and the accused had good terms. Accused was a frequent visitor to their house who used to address her "boudi". He once proposed to marry her. On this issue they quarrelled with each other and the petitioner stopped coming to her house. On the day of occurrence, the petitioner having been drunk appeared in front of her house and started abusing her with filthy language. He told that he would kill her husband and do nasty things to her. The PW immediately informed her mother-in-law about the conduct of the accused who was then working in the nearby field. When the PW and her mother-in-law were returning to their home, accused appeared before them and terrorised them by saying that he would chop her husband during night and do nasty things to her. Then her husband appeared. Accused assaulted him. The neighbouring people came there and the accused left. Again the accused attacked them in front of their house. When the PW tried to prevent the attack of her husband accused caught hold of her and pulled her with her saree. He also tore her blouse.
In her testimony before the Court, she told the Court that when she tried to prevent the attack on her husband accused tore her saree and blouse by catching hold of her. Her husband (PW-2) supported her evidence with regard to the assault on him. He stated that accused attacked him with a dao and gave blows in different parts of his body. With regard to the assault on his wife the PW stated that accused caught hold of her and tore her saree and blouse.
Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019.
Page - 7 of 11 [12] PW-3, is the mother-in-law of the victim. She also supported the statement of her daughter-in-law with regard to the assault of her son. She categorically asserted that accused attacked her son with a dao and gave severe blows on him as a result of which he received bleeding injuries on different parts of his body. The PW further stated that when her daughter-in-law tried to save her husband accused started dragging her and tore her saree.
[13] PW-4, is a neighbour of the victim who told the Court that following the cry, he appeared at the spot and saw that the accused and the husband and complainant were scuffling. The PW intervened and separated them. He also told the Court that wife and mother of the injured were also present there at that time.
Since the PW did not support his police statement, he was declared hostile at the instance of the Additional Public Prosecutor. He was cross examined by the prosecution lawyer.
[14] PW-6, is the Medical Officer who examined the injured husband and complainant at the hospital on the date of occurrence. He noticed multiple scratch marks (abrasions) and bruise on the person of the husband of the complainant which were simple in nature and caused by a blunt weapon. In his report (Exbt.6) the PW stated that the injuries were multiple in nature which could have been caused by sharp and blunt weapon.
Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019.
Page - 8 of 11 [15] PW-7 is the Investigating Officer who stated that materials collected during investigation supported the charges against the accused and, therefore, he submitted the charge sheet.
[16] PW-8, Smt. Rekha Das is a neighbour of the victim. She also stated that following hue and cry of the victim she arrived at the spot from her nearby house and saw the accused petitioner quarrelling with the husband of the first informant. When the first informant appeared at the spot and intervened, the accused started dragging her as a result of which her saree and blouse got torn.
[17] PW-9, another neighbour of the victims was declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution since he did not support his police statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Similarly PW-10, a neighbour of the victim was also declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution and he was cross-examined by the prosecution lawyer. Nothing could be extracted from him in favour of the prosecution. [18] In so far as the conviction of the petitioner under Section 323 IPC is concerned, the evidence discussed hereinabove would demonstrate that husband of the complainant was beaten by the petitioner as a result of which he suffered from abrasions and bruises in different parts of his body. The medical report (Exbt.4) would indicate that the husband of the complainant suffered from simple hurt. With regard to the assault of her husband, complainant and her mother-in-law and their neighbours and even the injured himself have given consistent, corroborative and Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019.
Page - 9 of 11 trustworthy evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements with regard to the assault of the husband of the complainant. Therefore, conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 323 IPC does not call for any interference.
[19] But in so far as the charge under Section 354 IPC is concerned it is evident that the complainant wife of the injured exaggerated her statement during trial. She stated that the accused for outraging her modesty also "pressed on her chest". Neither her mother- in-law nor her husband who were eye witness to the occurrence supported such statement. They stated that accused tore her saree and blouse. Police seized her saree and blouse. The seizure list contains the description of the seized wearing apparels of the complainant. The seizure list does not go to show that those were torn. The neighbours witnessed the occurrence who stated that when the complainant intervened during the fight between accused and her husband, accused caught hold of her and started dragging her. The whole circumstances portray serious and grave doubts with regard to the allegation of the complainant that the accused outraged her modesty. Section 354 IPC provides punishment for assault or criminal force to women with intent to outrage her modesty. Even though the evidence available on record suggest that the accused tried to deter the complainant by catching hold of her when she intervened during the fight between the accused and her husband with a view to save her husband from the assault, there is no evidence to infer that the accused used such force to the complainant with any culpable intention of outraging her modesty. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019.
Page - 10 of 11 read together would go to show that accused was drunk at the time of occurrence who quarrelled with the husband of the complainant and during such quarrel he assaulted him. But evidence available on record is not enough to prove the charge under Section 354 IPC beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.
[20] In view of the above, I am of the view that conviction and charge under Section 323 IPC is proved against the accused and his conviction under Section 323 is proper which does not call for any interference. But with regard to the charge under Section 354 IPC accused should be given the benefit of doubt and accordingly, he is acquitted of the charge under Section 354 IPC.
[21] In so far as the sentence of the accused petitioner under Section 323 IPC is concerned, it appears that the trial Court did not extend the benefit of the probation of the offenders act to the convict since he was also convicted under Section 354 IPC. Now, it has been held that charge under Section 354 IPC is not sustainable against the accused petitioner and he has been acquitted of the said charge. Therefore, in view of the given facts and circumstances, accused may be given the benefit of the Probation of The Offenders Act for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
[22] Accordingly, the trial court will place the accused under the supervision of a probation officer for a period of one year on condition that he would be of good conduct and he would not repeat the offence or Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019.
Page - 11 of 11 any other offence during the period of his probation. Accused is directed to appear before the trial Court on 20.12.2021 for executing a bond before the probation officer to the satisfaction of the trial court and on his execution of such bond he would be placed under the supervision of a probation officer for a period of one year under the terms and conditions aforesaid. Soon after receiving the L.C record the trial court shall call the probation officer to appear on 20.12.2021 for execution of bond by the convict petitioner before him.
[23] In terms of the above, the criminal revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Send down the LCR.
JUDGE Dipankar Crl. Rev. P No.44/2019.