Falguni Tripura vs State Of Tripura

Heard Mr. A Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S Debnath, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State.

By means of this revision petition, the judgment and order dated 18.06.2019 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 01 of 2019 by the Sessions Judge, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa has been questioned.

Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the ingredients of Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC could not be established by the prosecution and as such, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted from the said charges.

Based on the complaint filed by one Dipak Lal Saha, CDPO, Damburnagar ICDS Project [Exhibit-01] it has been revealed to the Officer-in-Charge, Gandacherra PS that the petitioner had suddenly appeared in a meeting, at about 9 a.m. on 01.09.2018 and assaulted the victim Nirmal Debbarma, which name has later on been corrected as Nirmahal Debbarma, and thus he deterred that public servant from discharging his duty. Even in the attack, one Parthamati Reang, an anganwadi worker [PW-02] was assaulted and she had received injuries.

The said police case being Gandacherra P.S. Case No. 2018GNCO44 was registered under Sections 353/332 of the IPC and investigated. The final report was submitted against the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Gandacherra, Dhalai Tripura took cognizance and framed the charge under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty. The prosecution adduced both oral and documentary evidence by examining eleven witnesses including the complainant, the victims Parthamti Reang (PW-02) and Nirmahal Debbarma, (PW-03).

Dr. Paifru Mog(PW-10) was also examined in the trial and he has supported the injury report [Exhibit-04]. The said report shows that PW-03 was assaulted having trauma-blunt. Even the injury report in respect of Parthamti Reang, PW-02 [Exhibit-05] has been introduced and explained by PW-10.

Independent witnesses namely Pramila Reang (PW-06), Sandhya Saha (Malakar) (PW-05), Smt. Subrata Debbarma (PW-4) have supported the prosecution case without any deviation. That apart, injured witnesses, PWs-02 & 03 have also stated how they were assaulted by the petitioner.

The petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. when he reiterated his plea of innocence by stating that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Thereafter, the trial judge by the judgment dated 15.02.2019 in PRC (WP) 30/2018 convicted the petitioner under Section 332/353 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months and fine of Rs.7,500/- with default stipulation, for committing offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC. It has been observed that the sentences are to run concurrently.

The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner by an appeal filed under Section 374(3) of the Cr.P.C. in the court of the Sessions judge being Crl. App. No. 01/ 2019. By the judgment and order dated 18.06.2019, the convictions of the petitioner have been upheld but his sentence has been interfered with as the petitioner had no criminal antecedent. The altered sentence that has been imposed is that the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months for offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC but there had been no modification in the sentence delivered for commission of offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. As the sentences are directed to run concurrently, the substantive sentence of imprisonment became 6(six) months.

Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has fairly submitted that at the relevant point of time the PWs 2 & 3 were not on government duty. Their original duty hours have been stated by PW-01 in the complainant.

Mr. S Debnath, learned Addl. PP has submitted that the injured witnesses, PWs 2 & 3, were part of a meeting which was the part of government duty, and as such the plea that has been raised in this petition may not be accepted by this court.

Having perused the records thoroughly, this court finds that is no reason to intervene the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the same is affirmed.

However, it is manifest from the records that the petitioner did not commit any other offence earlier and the appellate court has observed in this regard as a tool to reduce the sentence. Having regard to the purpose of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., this court is of the view that it is a fit case where the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act can be applied.

Thus, the sentence is put on hold and the petitioner is placed on probation for 1(one) year on execution of a bond of good conduct for the said period supported by one surety having the worth of Rs.20,000/- with undertaking to produce the petitioner in the event of failure in maintaining the good conduct. The bond shall be executed before the trial court when the trial court shall receive the copy of this order along with the records of this court. From the day of receipt of the records from this court, the said bond shall be executed within 7(seven) days therefrom, and it will be the responsibility of the petitioner to find out when the records reached the trial court.

It is further directed that if any adverse report is submitted the Probation Officer, the sentence will be restored and the petitioner shall be coerced to suffer that sentence as awarded by the appellate court. If the probation is completed without any complain, the sentence shall stand inoperative.

Accordingly, this revision petition stands partly allowed.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.

A copy of this order be supplied to the counsel of the petitioner.