NANTULAL BISWAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned PP assisted by Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20. 12. 2004 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in S. T. No. 44 (NT/d) of 2004 convicting the present two appellants for the commission of the offences under Section 302 IPC and 447 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and also against the order of sentence dated 22. 12. 2004 passed in the same case sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each to be given to the widow of the deceased, Gyanmani Biswas.

(3.) IT is the case of the accused-appellants that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge misconceived and misconstrued the facts and circumstance of the case and as such reached at erroneous and perverse findings leading to the impugned conviction and sentence. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant, there are discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the alleged eye witnesses, the investigation of the case was proceeded irregularly and illegally and the materials before the Court are not sufficient for convicting the accused-appellants. Further, according to the learned counsel of the accused-appellants, as per evidence before the Court, the accused-appellants assaulted the said Gyanmani Biswas without any intention to cause his death but only as a result of provocation caused by the said Gyanmani Biswas, they assaulted him without any intention to cause his death. It is also submitted on behalf of the accused-appellants that even assuming that the accused-appellants assaulted the said Gyanmani Biswas on that day leading to his death, on the basis of the materials before the Court, the Trial Court should have convicted the two accused only for the commission of the offence under either Section 325 IPC or Section 304 IPC and not for the offence under Section 302 IPC.