SUBRATA NATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is filed under Sec. 374 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 4/1/2024 delivered by Learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with case No.S.T.(T-1) No.22 of 2019. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 323 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 6(six) months and also to pay fine of Rs.1000.00 i.d. to suffer imprisonment for a further period of 1(one) month.

(2.) Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. K. Biswas assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. P. Majumder, Learned Counsel Mr. Rishiraj Nath and Learned Counsel Ms. S. Debbarma for the appellant and also heard Learned P.P. Mr. Raju Datta representing the State of Tripura.

(3.) In course of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel drawn the attention of the Court that initially the charge was framed by the Learned Trial Court under Sec. 307 of IPC but on conclusion of trial, Learned Trial Court below has found the appellant to be guilty under Sec. 323 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. According to Learned Counsel, in this case the prosecution has failed to explain the actual PO before the Learned Trial Court below because in the FIR it was mentioned that the PO was on a drain but the IO shown the PO on the bank of a pond but the witnesses of the prosecution stated that the PO was on the backside of the dwelling hut. There was no clear explanation from the side of prosecution in this regard. Furthermore, as alleged by the prosecution no blood stained earth was seized by IO during investigation nor any wearing gamcha which according to prosecution was stained with blood was seized by IO during investigation and furthermore, there is no evidence on record from the side of prosecution by what weapon actually the offence was alleged to be committed by the accused i.e. the present appellant. Furthermore, the witnesses of the prosecution during their examination before the Court made improved version of their statement. Prosecution has failed to explain those improved version before the Court in course of hearing of argument before the Learned Trial Court. Thus, the evidence of prosecution suffers from various infirmities but the Learned Court below without considering the materials on record found the appellant to be guilty and convicted him under Sec. 323 of IPC for which the interference of the Court is required and urged for allowing this appeal by setting aside the judgment of the Learned Court below.