Gauhati High Court
Bhanumati Devi (Nath) vs State Of Tripura on 6 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001CRILJ3770
JUDGMENT B.B. Deb, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The order dated 19-5-2001 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in S.T.166 (W.T/A) 90 has been put under challenge by way of the present criminal revision under Section 397/401 CrPC by the accused petitioner Smt. Bhanumati Devi (Nath).
3. The gist of the case which led this criminal revision petition field by the petitioner could be precisely narrated as under:-
Two accused persons, namely, Smt. Bhanumati Devi (Nath) and Sri Asim Nath had been sent for trial before the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge in connection with West Agartala PS case No. 276/98 under section 498-A/306 IPC. A plea was raised on behalf of the accused Asim Nath before the learned trial Court that since before his marriage with the deceased Anita Chetri he has been suffering from mental disorderness and after marriage, the said disease turned to be aggravated and he became a patient of psychomotor retardation. Being frustrated with the suffering of her husband with Incurable disease, Smt. Anita Chetri committed suicide on 4.8.1998. On being moved by the plea of insanity, the learned trial Court proceeded with the provision under Section 329 CrPC and on recorded medical evidence the learned trail Court having been satisfied postponed the trial against the insane accused Asim Nath and directed the trail to be proceeded against the accused Bhanumati Devi. The accused Bhanumati Devi put the aforesaid order of the learned trail Court under challenge in this revision petition.
4. Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist submits that the provision under Section 329 CrPC does not permit a trial to be splitted enabling the trial to proceed against one having kept the same postponed for other. The learned Public Prosecutor Mr. D. Sarkar having referred the Section 317(2) of CrPC submits that in a contingency where one accused is absent for obvious reason without being represented by any lawyer or due to persistent absence of one accused the case is being dragged, the trail Court can pass the order for separate trail for the absentee accused as and when his attendance could be procured and, as such, it is implied that separate trail is permissible.
5. To decide whether a separate trial for one or other accused is permissible having kept the trail postponed regarding others, it is to be examined whether in a criminal trial pertaining to commission of offence the case is to be tried or the accused is tried? In case it is found that a case is tried then it may not be possible to split up the trial, but if the converse is found then as and when it becomes expedient to do so, a separate trial for an accused would be obviously permissible having kept the trail adjourned sine the against other. The provisions laid down under Section 228(2) CrPC so far it relates to Sessions trail, Section 240(2) CrPC concerning warrant cases contemplate that after framing of charge against an accused person, the Court is required to ask the accused "whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried". The provisions of Section 300(1) CrPC prohibit the second trial of any accused "who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence". The provision of section 299(1) of CrPC authorises the Court to proceed with the trail against one accused while other remains absent and there is no immediate prospect of his attendance being procured.
6. The aforesaid provisions of the criminal Procedure Code have been referred only to ascertain the intendment of the scheme of the trail and from the aforequoted provisions of CrPC it remains explicit that in a criminal proceeding, not the case, but the accused is tried. A trial proceeds against the accused culminating either in his acquittal or conviction. It is also permissible as revealed from the very scheme of Criminal Procedure Code that a trial can proceed against the accused person having kept the proceeding adjourned sine the against the absentee accused who either absented or for other lawful reasons his attendance could not be procured. In a case of insanity, a trial cannot proceed against an insane as due to mental disorderness he is incapable of taking his defence nor according to law he could appoint any lawyer of his choice. So long his insanity continues, he should be deemed to be an absentee accused for the purpose of trial and as such in my considered opinion, the trail can proceed against the prudent accused.
7. Under the aforesaid legal background, I hold that the learned trial Court rightly passed the order to proceed with the trail against the petitioner alone.
8. The Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.