RATAN DEB Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C., questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 24.08.2011 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 21(2) of 2011 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2011 delivered in G.R. case No. 269 of 2008 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur, North Tripura.

(2.) PROSECUTION was initiated when one Rajkumar Debnath (PW.1) by filing a written ejahar to the Officer -in -charge, Pecharthal police station disclosed that on 18.07.2008 after the business hour he closed down his shop on the nightfall and returned home as usual. In the early morning of 19.07.2008, the land lord of his shop informed him that the bamboo wall of his shop was seen broken. He was asked to rush immediately with the keys of the shop. After entering into the shop, he found that some articles made of silver were burgled out. One Aditya Sarkar had seen the accused Ratan Deb and when he was challenged, the accused managed to flee away from the place. Subsequently, he was detained with the stolen articles. Alongwith the accused, Ratan Deb, one Bishu Barua was also detained, who had confessed that they had stolen those articles.

(3.) IN order to substantiate the charge as stated, the prosecution adduced 9(nine) witnesses including the complainant (PW.1), said Aditya Sarkar (PW.2) and the Investigating Officer, namely Krishna Dayal Tripura (PW.7). After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the accused persons were examined separately under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials those surfaced against them. Thereafter, as the defence did not adduce any evidence, on appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution the accused person, namely Bishu Baruah was acquitted whereas the petitioner, namely Ratan Deb had been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 457/380 of the IPC by the judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2011. On appreciation of the evidence, it has been observed that: