CHANDAN TRIPURA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the appeals emerged from the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2005 as passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in case No. S.T.77(ST/S)/2004 those are tied up for disposal by a common judgment and order. By the impugned judgments and orders, the appellants namely, Rabidhan Tripura (in Crl. A. 53 of 2005)/Chandan Tripura and Manik Bhowmik (in Crl.A. 24 of 2005) are sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, the IPC in short. Further the appellants namely, Chandan Tripura and Manik Bhowmik have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for 8 (eight) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine each of the said appellants will have to suffer further R.I. for 5(five) months for the offence punishable under Section 333 of the IPC and to suffer R.I. for 8(eight) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for 5(five) months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. It has been directed that the sentence against the appellants (except Rabidhan Tripura) shall run concurrently and the period which the appellants were in the custody be set off therefrom. For appreciating the challenge as directed against the impugned judgment and order, the essential facts may briefly be noticed at the outset.

(2.) The investigation thereafter followed which after sometimes was taken over by the Superintendent of Police (Crime) and the case docket was handed over to the Inspector of Police, namely, Manoranjan Das. Subsequently the investigation was transferred to another Inspector of Police, namely, Dulal Chandra Dutta who completed the investigation and filed the Charge-sheet against the appellants and other 13 persons under Sections 148 /149 /353 /333 /307 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sabroom, South Tripura on taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 148 /149 /353 /333 /307 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act committed the case to the Court of the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur as the offence under Section 307 was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur transferred the said case for trial to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur who framed the charge against the appellants and 13 other persons under Sections 148 /333 /307 of the I.P.C. read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants and other accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.