UMESH DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP for the State.

(2.) This appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.2002 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in ST 10(ST/U)/2002 under Section 307 IPC. By the said impugned judgment, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with the present appeal on the ground that the learned trial Judge committed illegality by recording the conviction and sentence without any substantial evidence on record. The prosecution case, in brief, as revealed during trial may be stated as follows:-

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with the present appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants taking me through the evidence on record has submitted that there is not an iota of substantive evidence against the present appellants and that the learned trial Judge committed illegality by convicting the appellants without any evidence on record. It is also submitted that the charge under Section 307/34 IPC was wrongly framed against the appellants. The learned Addl. PP, supporting the impuged judgment and order, submitted that the learned trial Judge recorded the conviction and sentence on the basis of the evidence on record and that, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. In order to appreciate the counter arguments, advanced by the learned counsels, appearing for both the parties, and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, I feel it appropriate to briefly re-capitulate the evidence on record. In the present case, the charge was framed against the five persons for the offence under Section 307 IPC. In the charge, there was no mention regarding intention and knowledge. Even the learned trial Judge, while framing the charges against the five persons did not add the Section 34 IPC to bind all the accused persons. Therefore, the charge framed against the appellants does not indicate that the alleged offence was committed by the appellants in furtherance of their common intention. In order to bring charge against a person alleging commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC it must be indicated in the charge that the act i.e. the offence was committed with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that had the act caused death he/she would have been guilty of murder. In a case under Section 307 IPC the ingredients i.e. (i) an intention or knowledge of committing murder and (ii) doing the act towards it must be present. Hence, if the charge does not contain the said two ingredients, the same cannot be a lawful charge under Section 307 IPC. The charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge reads as follows:-