High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 08 TP CK 0006

Shyamal VsThe State of Tripura

Tripura High Court · Decided on 20 August 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Gupta, C.J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Crl. Rev. P. 52 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 379 words

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—This is another unfortunate case where a trial in a murder case has been stalled for more than four years due to interim orders granted by this Court.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint was registered at the instance of one Smti. Tinku Roy alias Chumki Roy, W/O. Late Arjun Roy in which she alleged that the petitioner/accused had called her husband on 10-04-2005. Her husband was working as a driver with the petitioner/accused. When her husband did not return back, she along with her brothers visited the complainant but he gave no proper answer. Finally, they read a news item in a newspaper on 19-04-2005 that an unknown dead body had been recovered from the Gomti river at Sonamura. Thereafter, the complaint was filed and it was alleged in the complaint that the complainant suspected that her husband had been murdered by the petitioner herein.

3.

The police investigated the matter and charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. On 22-05-2010, Charge under sections 302 read with section 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was framed against the petitioner and other accused persons. Thereafter, this petition was filed and the proceeding before the trial Court was stayed on 02-08-2010 mainly on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

4.

I am indeed shocked that only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction a sessions trial should be delayed for such a long period. The murder could have taken place in any of the two jurisdictions. The deceased was taken away from Udaipur. The petitioner claimed that the trial should be held either at Udaipur or at Sonamura but not at Belonia. The FIR was lodged at Santirbazaar which falls within the jurisdiction of Belonia and according to the complainant, her husband was taken away from Belonia. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Courts at Belonia have no jurisdiction in the matter.

5.

Hence, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected.

6.

The sessions trial has been hanging fire for more than four years. The learned trial Court is directed to ensure that the trial is completed as early as possible, and in any event not later than 31-03-2015.

7.

Send down the lower court records forthwith.