PRAFULLA CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Sri Prafulla chandra Das was serving as L/nk in central Reserve Police Force (for short C. R. P. F.)in the year 1998. On 20-6-1998 he was on duty in A/49 C. R. P. F. camp, at Chechua, under Ampi Nagar police station of South tripura district. Bahadur Kohli (P. W. 1 was then the camp Commandant. A health camp was organized by the CRPF, Chechua, with the medical officer (P. W. 9) providing treatment to the patients right from 7. 30 a. m. The prosecution version is that at 1. 30 p. m. when the camp commandant (P. W. 1) and the Doctor (P. W. 9) were proceeding for taking lunch inside the camp, the appellant suddenly confronted the camp commandant and entered into an altercation. He was instantly over-powered by two persons. But sometime after, the appellant allegedly opened fire indiscriminately though none was injured. He fired 15 rounds from his service rifle S. L. R. 7. 62 mm. again he was over-powered and later handed over to the ampi police Station with an FIR against him. an investigation followed and ended into a charge sheet against the appellant under section 37 of Indian Penal Code (for short ipc) and 27 of the Arms Act. He was dismissed from service even before completion of the trial which commenced with framing of charge on 12-1-2000 by the learned sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur. At the end of the trial the appellant was found guilty under Sections 307 and 427 of IPC and convicted accordingly. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 307 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 427 IPC, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another three months. The charge under the arms Act failed. Challenging the conviction and sentence in ST-74 (ST/a99) the appellant is before this Court in the present appeal.

(2.) 1 have heard Mr. A. C. Bhowmik. learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned special P. P. for the state respondent.

(3.) MR. Bhowmik submits that there is absolutely no credible and dependable evidence against the appellant to sustain the conviction under Section 307/427 of IPC. Ten witnesses were examined by prosecution to establish the charges against the appellant. Except P. Ws. 1 to 5 who are the complainant himself and other CRPF jawans under him of the Chechua camp claiming to have witnessed the appellant shooting from his rifle, the only independent eye witness is Dr. N. Jamatia (P. W. 9) whose evidence certainly carries much weight, for obvious reasons P. Ws. 2 to 4, the Jawans of the camp under P. W.-1, would be more inclined to support their camp commandant who lodged the FIR against the appellant alleging he attempted to kill the commandant. In the FIR it is the version of the camp commandant that on the day before i. e. on 19-6-1998 the appellant approached him to allow to go to Teliamura to make a phone-call to his house where his old mother was seriously sick. The commandant turned down the request saying that he would be permitted to go only on the following day, i. e. on 2-6-1998. The appellant insisted and made some arguments. But the commandant was adamant. The matter, however, ended there with no other re-action from the appellant. The question which then confronts, why the appellant should run amok and open indiscriminate firing from his rifle on the day, i. e. , 20-6-1998, he was to go to teliamura with permission already obtained for making a call to his house. The alleged occurrence had taken place at 13. 25 hours which indicates till that time he was not allowed to go for the call. In his deposition p. W. 1 stated that when he was proceeding with the doctor (P. W.-9) for lunch inside the camp, the appellant wanted to speak to him and when refused he made some altercation and fired two rounds. Two jawans quickly over-powered him. The commandant then asked the appellant why he was behaving like a mad man. However, the appellant was taken away. The camp ommandant requested the doctor to leave the place. Accordingly he left. Thereafter, the camp commandant entered into the room and took a safer place for his protection. Just at that time he realised that there was firing from all directions around the lunch spot. After some time the appellant entered through the main door into the room where the camp commandant and others had taken shelter. P. W.-1 saw the appellant entering into the room slowly. Then he and others caught hold of him and snatched away the SLR from his hand. Thereafter the appellant and his slr were handed over to the police. The S. L. R. was seized on 21-6-1998. This being exactly what P. W. 1 deposed before the trial Court, the questions that have surfaced therefrom are how the appellant, who was over-powered after he had fired two rounds initially, could come out and fire 15 rounds again, or why the camp commandant had to advise the doctor (P. W. 9) to leave the place without taking lunch even after the appellant was taken into custody, or why he and other witnesses had to take shelter in a safer place even after the appellant was over-powered. This leads to another question, if the appellant was in their custody after he fired two rounds in the initial encounter, whether there was any other good reason for the camp commandant and other jawans to fear further attack on their lives from persons other than the appellant.