TAPASH SARKAR, S/O LATE RAJENDRA SARKAR; BIDUR SARKAR, S/O LATE CHINTA HARAN SARKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the petitioners Tapash Sarkar and Bidur Sarkar is directed against the judgment dated 29-03- 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in Criminal Appeal No.6(1) of 2008 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the present petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 13-02-2008 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura, West Tripura in G.R. 14 of 2001 convicting the petitioners and one Dulal Sarkar of having committed an offence punishable under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default thereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) months.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Dulal Sarkar was married to PW-4, Smti. Jhulan Sarkar. It is also not disputed that the relations between Dulal Sarkar and his wife were strained and she was residing with her parents in her parental home. In fact, legal proceedings were going on between husband and wife. The prosecution story is that on 13th Magha, 1407 B.S., i.e. on the night intervening 27/28-01-2001, Dulal Sarkar along with his brothers Bidur Sarkar and Tapash Sarkar entered into the dwelling house of his father-in-law (PW-1) and beat PW-1 and other persons inside the room. It is also alleged that they stole a sum of Rs.48,000/- and some gold ornaments which were kept for the marriage of another daughter of PW-1. According to PW-1, he had tied the money and the ornaments in a 'gamcha' bound at his waist. According to PW-1, accused Dulal Sarkar gave him a blow of a 'dao' on the wrist and Tapash Sarkar assaulted him with a 'lathi' and when his daughter Jhulan came to rescue him, she was also given stab injuries by the accused persons. A case of robbery was filed against the three accused and they have been convicted as aforesaid.

(3.) In my view, the prosecution has proved that the three accused entered the house of PW-1 and assaulted him. However, robbery is not proved. Neither any ornaments nor any money was recovered. It is also important to note that neither PW-1 nor his wife (PW-3) nor any other relative could give any plausible explanation as to from where PW-1 had collected Rs.48,000/- and from where he had purchased the gold ornaments. No evidence of any independent witnesses has been led to prove as to from where PW-1 managed to get Rs.48,000/- and a large quantity of gold ornaments. Some shopkeeper or other person from where the gold ornaments had been purchased should have been examined. Similarly, some person should have stated that he or she had lent Rs.48,000/- to PW-1. There is no statement in this regard. In fact, the versions given by PW-1, 3 and the other members of the family are conflicting as to how this money was arranged. Therefore, I am clearly of the view that no offence of robbery is made out.