PRADIP SUKLADAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
LAWS(TRIP)-2021-3-10
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on March 03,2021

Pradip Sukladas Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Akil Kureshi, J. - (1.) This appeal is filed by the defecto complainant, a relative of the deceased. He has challenged the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai Tripura in Case No. S.T (T-1) 07 of 2017.
(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution version was that on 12.09.2015 at about 2230 hours accused Indrajit Sukla Das and Prasenjit Sukla Das had a quarrel. The accused first gave a stick blow to Prasenjit upon which he fell down. People from the neighbourhood arrived and prevented any further harm being done to Prasenjit. The accused went away and returned some 15 to 20 minutes later and gave a knife blow to Prasenjit on his back causing serious stab injury. The accused ran away. Prasenjit was shifted to a hospital where the doctor declared him dead. The accused was charged with offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The prosecution examined several witnesses including eye witnesses and the medical experts. The learned Judge substantially believed the incident as projected by the prosecution and came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of giving a knife blow to the deceased on his back. However, learned Judge was of the opinion that this was not a case which would fall under Section 302 of IPC, instead it would fall under Section 304 Part-I. Resultantly, the learned Judge convicted the accused for offence under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. Fine of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed. Since the accused was acquitted for offence under Section 302 of IPC, this appeal has been filed by the defecto complainant, though the State has not preferred appeal. Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that the accused has also not preferred appeal against his conviction and sentence.
(3.) Since the accused though served, has not been represented, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged us to assign an advocate from the legal aid panel or to appoint an Amicus to represent the accused. Ordinarily, the course suggested by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would be the correct one and we would have definitely accepted his suggestion. In any case, we would not have proceeded to allow the appeal without full and effective representation by the accused. However, our initial gathering of facts on record suggested that it may be possible to decide the appeal in absence of the accused. We have accordingly heard Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Upon culmination of such hearing, we have come to the conclusion that this is not a case where the conviction of the accused should be converted from one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 304 Part-1 of IPC to Section 302 thereof. We would shortly record our reasons for this conclusion.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.