Sampa Sutradhar vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] As agreed by the counsel for the parties this revision petition is converted to an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

[2] Heard Mr. D. C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. PP appearing for the respondent No.1 [the state]. Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.3 and Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appears for the remaining respondents.

[3] This is an appeal for enhancement of sentence from the judgment and order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Session Trial (Type-1) 17 of 2014. By the said judgment, the respondents have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 148 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under Section 447 of the IPC. Further, the respondent No.3 Subhodh Sarkar has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5000 with default stipulation. The respondents No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs.5000 with default stipulation.

[4] The appellant has challenged the sentence on the ground that the sentence as awarded is inadequate in terms of the offence they have committed.

[5] Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who can broadly be called the victim has submitted that all those respondents, who have been awarded sentence of 3 years with fine, formed the unlawful assembly and attacked the deceased, namely Litan Biswas and caused grievous injuries. On the basis of the information, the police went to the place of occurrence and received the oral ejahar which was reduced to writing, from one Narendra Biswas. On the basis of the said complaint, Lefunga PS Case No. 09 of 2013 under Sections 148/149/302/448/325 and 302 IPC was registered.

[6] According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel the evidence as led by the prosecution is in abundance to prove the charges as framed on the materials available in the final police report. The charges were framed under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Subsequently, the additional charges were framed under Sections 148, 444, 149 and 506 of the IPC read with section 149 of the IPC. The charges were denied by the accused-respondents. After recording the evidence as laid by the prosecution, the trial judge convicted the accused-respondents under Sections 148, 447, 304 Part II read with Section 149 of the IPC. Thereafter, by a separate order on hearing the accused, the sentence was awarded on the accused-respondents. The respondents were give all opportunities to build up their defence, even the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C to have their say on the incriminating materials as surfaced in the records of evidence.

[7] Mr. Roy, learned counsel has further submitted that the attack was deliberate and premeditated. It was not sudden or on provocation. Though the conviction has not been challenged under Section 304 Part II of the IPC by the appellant, but the sentence as awarded by the trial judge is too inadequate according to the appellant inasmuch as the range of sentence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC may extend to 10 years with or without fine.

[8] However, Mr. Roy, learned counsel has fairly admitted that one person, namely Subodh Sarkar has been awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation for committing the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. But equal sentence was not given to the other accused-respondents. For this, the trial judge has observed as follows:

"A sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 304 (II) IPC against Subodh Sarkar shall meet the ends of justice and a sentence of RI for three years and fine of Rs.5,000 for the offence under Section 304 (II) IPC read with 149 IPC against the remaining convict shall meet the ends of justice as they did not cause blow on the head of the victim but participated in the offence being member of the unlawful assembly."

[9] Mr. Roy, learned Counsel has contended that this cannot be stated to be adequate reason to give the lesser punishment.

[10] Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that the trial court has applied its discretion having due regard to the facts relating to the transaction of the offence and the mitigating circumstances as the offence took place on the day of counting of votes, and the situation was surcharged. The reason for giving a lesser conviction cannot be therefore faulted with.

Having appreciated the submission made by the counsel for the parties and without making any observation on the correctness of the finding of conviction, this court finds the distinction as made between two categories of the accused-respondents is well reasoned. As such, this court is not inclined to interfere with the said sentence.

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Send down the LCRs.

The registry shall register this case as appeal and renumber this petition.