Manik Rikmani vs State Of Tripura

S. Talapatra, J

Heard Mr. DC Roy, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional PP appearing for the respondent-State.

This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2012 delivered in case No. Sessions Trial 26 (NT/K) of 2012 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 304 part II of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-with default stipulation.

The prosecution case in short is that, on 05.10.2011 at about 7.00 pm in front of the shop of one Nimai Karmakar, the appellant assaulted his father by branch of tree and caused head injury. His father was taken to his home and his son, the informant of this case, tried to take his father to the hospital by an auto rickshaw but, on the way, the father of the appellant succumbed to his injuries. On 06.10.2011 a written complaint was filed by Babu Chand Rikmani, another son of the deceased, which was scribed by one Dilip Koiri at his dictation. On the basis of the said complaint, Kailasahar PS case No. 136 of 2011 under Sections 341/302 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation.

After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final report charge-sheeting the appellant. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the police papers were committed to the court of Sessions judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar, as it then was, and the Sessions Judge framed the charge under Sections 341/302 of the IPC to which the appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has adduced as many as 19(nineteen) witnesses including Nimai Karmakar (PW-4) and Dr. Tushar Kanti Choudhury (PW-8) who had conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased. The prosecution had also introduced 3 (three) documentary evidence including the post-mortem examination report as Exhibit-3.

According to the post-mortem examination report, the cause of death was due to head injury, anti-mortem in nature. Thus, the finding was that the death was homicidal one. On recording of evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. during which he had reiterated the plea of his innocence and stated that he has been implicated falsely. However, on appreciation of the evidence as a whole, the trial court convicted the appellant by the impugned judgment and sentenced him as stated before.

Mr. DC Roy, learned Legal Aid counsel on the face of the evidence has submitted that the appellant would not challenge the finding of the conviction but, Mr. Roy, learned counsel has raised the plea that since it has been held that the culpable homicide was not murder as the appellant had no intention to cause death, proportionality of sentence becomes pertinent. According to Mr. Roy, even if the entire prosecution evidence is believed, it would be apparent that out of a certain rage, the appellant by taking a branch of tree did hit on the head of his father. The culpable act was from an uncontrollable passion. Moreover, the appellant had no criminal antecedent at least nothing has been placed by the prosecution on record. Mr. Roy, has therefore, submitted that already the appellant has suffered 7(seven) years 6 (six) months and 10(ten) days and if the sentence is reduced to 7 ½ years that would be proportionate.

Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional PP did not project any opposition to the said prayer as made by Mr. DC Roy.

Having considered the nature of offence and transaction thereof, this court finds that the sentence can be reduced to 7½ years. Accordingly, it is ordered. The finding of conviction, however, stands confirmed.

In terms of the above, this appeal stands partly allowed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.