GOUCH ALI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 5.5.04, passed by the learned sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashhar in Criminal Appeal No.9(3) of 2002, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, while upholding conviction under Section 148, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') against all the petitioners and under Section 147 IPC against Kamal Uddin, set aside the conviction recorded under Section 323 read with Section 147 IPC. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge while modifying the sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate directed all the petitioners, except Kamal Uddin, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for their conviction under Section 148 IPC. Mr. Kamal Uddin was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for his conviction under Section 147 IPC. All the petitioners were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for their conviction under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC. It was directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentences, the convict-appellants as petitioners have come up with this revision challenging the impugned conviction and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge aforesaid.

(2.) I have heard Mr. C. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

(3.) MR. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State while supporting the impugned conviction and sentence has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge rightly modified the conviction and the sentences and as such the impugned judgment and order needs no interference at this stage.