NITYA GOPAL PAUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is against the judgment and order dated 15-5-95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashshar in Criminal Appeal No. 6(3)/94 thereby affirming the conviction and sentences passed by the learned S. D. J. M., Dharmanagar, North Tripura in G. R. Case No. 594/90 for the offences under Section 148 of IPC and sentencing the petitioners to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentencing them 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 3,000/- each.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 9-9-90 in the morning, some villagers of Raghna village, numbering about 30 or 40 under the leadership of accused Sanat Kumar Paul came to the house of Ramgopal alias Dendu Singh. They surrounded the house from all sides and some of them entered into the house and dragged out Dendu Singh in presence of his mother and others and he was assaulted severely by iron rod, lathi and by fists. He was then brought out from his house and in front of the house of one Nikhil Singh (P.W. 11), accused Hrishikesh Paul alias Jadu cut off his left hand just below the wrist with a dao and after the left hand was thus amputated the victim was put in a pull cart and thereafter he was taken towards hospital. But on the way accused Nirmal Paul cut off his right hand just above the wrist and accused lost his consciousness. In the next morning a villager named Atika Paul found victim Dendu Singh lying in a pool of blood with both his hands having cut off near the wrist and on his alarm people gathered and also police came and thereafter an F.I.R. was lodged. After submission of charge-sheet 15 accused persons were tried and convicted by the trial Court and their conviction was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge as aforesaid.

(3.) In the course of the arguments Mr. B. B. Deb, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously submitted that the courts-below committed a patent error while convicting all the accused persons in absence of specific evidence having been found against specific accused persons individually. The learned counsel has submitted that if the prosecution has been able to prove any specific act committed by any of the accused persons then only those persons may be convicted. The learned counsel further submits that if it is presumed that the accused persons and many other came to the house of the victim Dendu Singh any common object of those group of persons which can be gathered is only for the purpose of taking bamboo as a contribution/donation for Puja and as such there was no common object of committing any offence.