SUJIT SHIL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.4.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura in C.R. Appeal No. 01 of 2003 arising out of the conviction and sentence dated 17.12.2003 passed by the learned SDJM, Kamalpur, North Tripura in G.R. Case No. 140 of 1996. The accused petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Revision petitioners) were prosecuted on the basis of a complaint lodged by Smt. Sumitra Das, W/O Sri Sukumar Das on 8.9.96 with the O.C. Ambassa Police Station. The said complaint was registered as an FIR being ABS PS Case No. 42 of 1996 under Section 326 IPC. In the FIR aforesaid it was alleged that in the evening of 7.9.1996, while the complainant's husband Sri Sukumar Das was working in his paddy field, the accused persons, namely, Sri Harimohan Shil, Sri Sujit Shil and Sri Gopal Shil attacked Sri Sukumar Das and Sri Sujit Shil stabbed the victim with a dagger causing injuries to his person. The victim was taken to the hospital for medical treatment. After registering the case aforesaid, the Police launched investigation into the case and submitted chargesheet against the revision petitioners for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate framed charge under Section 326 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses including the I.O. Considering the materials on record, the learned SDJM, Kamalpur convicted the revision petitioners for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced Sri Sujit Shil (since deceased) to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default, further RI for three months and Sri Harimohan Shil and Sri Gopal Shil to suffer RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default, further RI for three months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence the revision petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge having heard both the sides modified the impugned conviction under Section 326 IPC to one under Section 324 IPC and considering the suffering and the mental anxiety undergone by the revision petitioners since 1996 i.e. the time of institution of the case, sentenced them to undergo SI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, further imprisonment for fifteen days. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge the revision petitioners have come with this revision on the ground that the conviction was based without any legal evidence.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP for the State.

(3.) Producing a death certificate it is submitted that Sri Sujit Shil, one of the revision petitioners expired on 26.3.2005 i.e. during pendency of this revision. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that this revision survives against the revision petitioners Sri Harimohan Shil and Sri Gopal Shil. Learned Addl. PP has supported this contention. In view of the above, we are required to examine if there is legal evidence against Sri Harimohan Shil and Sri Gopal Shil. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that except the evidence of the victim himself there is no other evidence supporting the prosecution version and as such for want of corroboration, the impugned order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. Contesting the said argument, the learned Addl. PP submitted that in a given situation like the present one, the conviction can be based even on the basis of the evidence of the victim, whose statement is found to be reliable. The learned Addl. PP submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Judge committed no illegality by convicting the revision petitioners on the basis of the evidence on record.