PRADIP CHAKMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. U.K. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

(2.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2012 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.38/2012 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. By the said judgment dated 27.11.2012, the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2012 delivered in G.R.131/2008 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur, North Tripura, has been affirmed on dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The relevant fact as would be required for appreciating the challenge in this petition is that, one Dhananjoy Chakma on 01.04.2008 had lodged a complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur, North Tripura, disclosing that the petitioner was his nephew and as the parents of the petitioner died in his childhood, the complainant used to look after him. The complainant has further stated that the petitioner also used to look after the complainant and his wife. The petitioner, taking the advantage of love and affection of the complainant, tried to capture the complainant's landed property by putting pressure on him. On 12.10.2007, with a view to grab all the landed property, the petitioner made an affidavit before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur, North Tripura, stating that the "complainant was his father and the complainant has died". It was also affirmed in that affidavit that the younger brother of the complainant, namely Indrajoy Chakma also died on 25.12.2002 and the petitioner was the sole legal heir of the complainant as well as of the complainant's younger brother. It has been also stated in the said ejahar that Indrajoy Chakma actually died on 25.07.1997. The petitioner managed to get a death certificate of Indrajoy Chakma and by swearing a false affidavit before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kanchanpur on 18.09.2001, he made a forged deed by which he got all the property of Indrajoy Chakma. When the complainant put pressure, the petitioner handed over the photocopies of the forged documents to the complainant. The complainant further stated that the delay occurred as there was possibility of amicable settlement of the dispute.