ABDUL SUFAN Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal appeal, the nine convicted appellants are questioning the legality of the judgment and order dated 15. 6. 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court (Additional Sessions Judge), North Tripura, Kailashahar in Sessions Trial No. 125 (NT/k) of 2002 convicting each of them under Sections 148/149/323/302 IPC and sentencing them to life and other imprisonments.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 15. 1. 2000 at about 0745 hours, one Md. Gouch Ali lodged a written ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Kailashahar Police Station alleging that on 14. 1. 2000 at about 7 PM, his brother, Makkadas Ali (the deceased) and another person, namely, Sunaf Ali, had gone to attend a dinner invitation at the house of one Abdul Rahman and that on returning home after the dinner at about 9. 30 PM, they were attacked by the appellants No. 1 to 8 (the appellant No. 9 was not named in the original ejahar) in the course of which the deceased died on the spot and Sunaf Ali sustained severe injuries. In the meantime, on hearing the cries of the deceased and Sunaf Ali, some people rushed to the spot and found the appellants killing his deceased brother. According to Md. Gouch Ali, the following persons, namely, (1) Akachhuch Ali, (2) Nur Islam, (3) Sabid Ali and (4) Sunaf Ali witnessed the incident. On the basis of that report, the police registered a regular case and conducted Investigation of the case, which ultimately resulted in charge-sheeting the appellants including the appellant No. 9 under Sections 148/149/323/302 IPC. On commitment, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, North Tripura District, Kailashahar framed charges under the aforesaid sections against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the trial court proceeded with the trial in which the prosecution examined some eleven witnesses and exhibited a number of documents and material objects to bring home the charges against the appellants. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found all the appellants guilty of the charges framed against them, convicted and sentenced them in the manner already indicated earlier.

(3.) COMING now to the evidence of the injured witness, who was examined as PW 3, he deposed that on the evening of 14. 1. 2000, he along with the deceased, with the permission of his elder brother, attended the invitation for dinner at the house of one Abdul Rahman, and they proceeded to return home at about 9. 30 PM via Rangauti-Debipur Road, but on reaching near the house of one Abdul Manna, Safique Ali (A-2), Anjab Ali (A-9), Ajmat Ali (A-5), Surnam Ali (A-4), Abdul Ali (A-1), Ustar Ali (A-8), Hasmat Ali (A-7), Assadur Rahman (A-3) and Abdul Malik (A-6) armed with deadly weapons like dao, lathi, spear etc. , blocked their way and gheraod them in the course of which A-2 dealt a spear blow on the leg of the deceased, who immediately started to run towards the western side of the road. On seeing this, PW 3 also started to run towards east and while running on the main road, he met PW 5, PW 2, the said Nurul Islam and Akkadas Ali and told them that the appellants attacked him and the deceased, but he managed to save his life. He also requested them to save the life of the deceased. At this, PW 5, PW 2, the said Nurul Islam and Akkadas Ali rushed to the PO while he proceeded towards his house and on the way he met Gouch Ali (PW 1) to whom he narrated the incident whereafter PW 1 also rushed to the PO. He then went home and on reaching home, he also related the incident to Surman Ali (PW 4), PW 4 is the brother of PW 3. The two of them thereafter went to fetch for an auto-rickshaw at Rangauti market for going to hospital for treatment. While they were searching for the auto-rickshaw, PW 1 also arrived at Rangauti market at about 11-45 PM. They then found the auto-rickshaw and came to R. G. M. Hospital. PW 3 further deposed that he was under treatment in that hospital for 10/12 days. He came to know the next day at the hospital that the deceased was murdered. He claimed that he knew all the appellants as all of them were his neighbours and that he could identify them by the focus of the charger light carried by them. In his re-examination, he disclosed that on 13. 1. 2000, BSF checked the house of A-8 on the basis of their information and found two bullocks in his house and the same were kept for smuggling to Bangladesh and that A-8 and A-1 quarrelled with them and threatened them.