SONA MIA Vs. THE GOVT. OF TRIPURA
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
The Govt. Of Tripura
Click here to view full judgement.
Narendra Nath Sen Gupta, C.J. -
(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge of Agartala, agreeing with the opinion of the three assessors who aided him at the trial and sentenced to transportation for life. He preferred an appeal against the decision. The appeal against his conviction was dismissed and simultaneously a notice was issued upon him under Section 439, Cr.P.C. to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced to one of death. He showed cause accordingly but the sentence was. enhanced.
(2.) THE petitioner has thereupon applied to this Court for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The grounds put forward in support of the petition are as follows:
(i) That this Court had no jurisdiction to enhance the sentence after having dismissed the appeal.
(ii) That this Court had no jurisdiction at the revision to discuss matters already discussed during the appeal,
(iii) That the sentence passed by the Sessions Judge not being illegal, the enhancement thereof was illegal and ultra vires.
(iv) That the trial before the Sessions Court was vitiated as the witnesses cited by the petitioner before the Committing Magistrate were not summoned.
(v) That the petitioner was prejudiced -
(a) as the post -mortem examination of the deceased had been held in the absence of the Divisional, Judicial Officer who was directed by the Sub -Divisional Officer to be present at such examination,
(b) as the blood -stained beddings were not produced before the Court, and
(c) as the investigating officer did not show the 'machang' in the sketch map.
(3.) THE points will be dealt with seriatim: Point (1): The judgment of this Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner ended with these words.
The conviction of the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge was therefore justified.
The appeal therefore must stand dismissed.
It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the appellant too leniently in inflicting the punishment of transportation for life, in a case of such brutal and inhuman murder of an old man in his sleep. It is not clear what extenuating circumstances led him to do so; all that is available from his judgment is that the lesser sentence was justified by "...of the appellant...." There is however prima facie no material for showing that these would amount to any extenuating circumstance. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the punishment of the appellant should be enhanced to one of death by revision under Section 439, Cr.P.C. This will be done separately.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.