Jiten Munda vs State Of Tripura

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case no. S.T. 11(GT/A) of 2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight year and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three month for committing an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Heard Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP appearing for the respondent.

The prosecution case, briefly stated, was launched on the basis of a complaint submitted by one Smt. Gouri Munda, stating inter alia that on 21.07.2015 at about 6.00 pm, there was an altercation between her son and the appellant and incourse of that altercation, the appellant had assaulted her son by inflicting fist, blows and kicks in his chest and belly and also pressed his throat in order to kill him. It has also been alleged that after assaulting her son, the appellant had fled away from the spot and thereafter as the condition of her son was deteriorating, he was taken to Amarpur hospital and, subsequently on the next day i.e. on 22.07.2015 he was shifted to Gomati District hospital, Udaipur where he had succumbed to his injuries.

Pursuant thereto, the Officer-in-Charge of Birganj police station had registered an FIR vide Birganj PS case no. 50 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC and took up the matter for investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the appellant. Since the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur wherein the case was registered as case No. S.T. 11 (GT/A) of 2016.

The learned Sessions Judge has framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. During trial, the court had examined 15 witnesses altogether. The prosecution also had introduced 12 documentary evidences. After completion of the trial, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. when the appellant pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried.

After perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and having considered the documentary evidences, the learned Sessions Judge found that the instant case was not a case of murder as defined under Section 302 IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 (eight) years.

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn my attention to the evidences, particularly to the evidence of PW-1 and PW-13, who are claimed to be the eye witnesses to the incident. Both the witnesses have stated that there was a sudden quarrel between the deceased and the appellant out of consumption of liquor. Further, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has urged before this court for reduction of sentence of the appellant. This submission of learned counsel has also been supported by Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.

Mr. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly converted the charge under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC from Section 302 of the IPC.

I have gone through the records and judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I have also perused the deposition of the witnesses minutely and also have examined the documentary evidence. After scrutiny of the judgment, I find that the conversion of the charge against the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC does not suffer from any infirmity.

After considering the evidence and the nature of crime committed, in my opinion, the conviction should be upheld. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, as returned by the learned Sessions Judge, is upheld and affirmed. However, I am inclined to reduce the sentence imposed upon the appellant.

In my opinion, if the sentence is reduced to 6 (six) years from 8 (eight) years, then it would be proportionate to the nature of the crime, the appellant has committed. Accordingly, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years which would include the period of imprisonment, he has already suffered by this time. Further, the fine amount of Rs. 7,000/- as was determined by the learned Sessions Judge is also reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. The default stipulation shall remain unaltered.

With this observation and direction, this appeal is partly allowed in terms of the above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.

A copy of the judgment be send to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur for modifying the conviction and sentence warrant.