Libertatem Magazine

Decision of the Lower Court Remains Unchanged as the Case Moves to Tripura HC

Contents of this Page

A revision petition was filed by Smti Khushi Rani Das, Wife of Late Atal Das against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he affirmed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitting the respondents from criminal charges.

Even then the High Court found no reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions, Judge.

Facts of the case

On the auspicious occasion of the 125th birth anniversary of Dr B. R. Ambedkar, Smt. Khushi Rani Das organised a seminar. Allegedly the petitioners arrived at the scene and verbally abused them. They also damaged some of the chairs which were brought from a local decorator for the participants.

Sub-Inspector Sri Prabal Deb of police of Kakraban police station who was in charge of the investigation visited the place and found broken chairs lying around. Upon further examination of material witnesses submitted his reports to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Arguments of the appellant

The Learned Counsel argued that there is plenty of evidence by the prosecution to prove that the respondents assaulted the complainant and her associates, ransacked the furniture and other materials which were hired by the complainant from a local decorator to organise the programme and caused damage to those materials.

Sri Sanjib Ghosh, a neighbour of the complainant stated in his examination-in-chief that he supplied the plastic chairs to the complainant on rent for the function and witnessed on the respondents Dhirendra Das hitting a chair with another chair in the evening while piling up chairs for transportation.

Further, submission on behalf of the complainant is that the learned Trial Court without proper regards to the available evidence and passed an unreasoned judgment. These arguments most revolved around the same theory presented by petitioner in the trial Court.

Arguments of the respondents 

The Learned Counsel of the Petitioner stated that there is no error in the previous judgments passed by lower courts. They further presented that the FIR lodged by the complainant contains contradictory statements. It is stated in the FIR that the programme continued from 1 pm to 6.30 pm.

Elsewhere in her FIR, it is also asserted by the complainant that the two accused appeared at the site of the programme at 10 ‘O’clock in the night which is contradictory and hence questions the credibility of the FIR. Furthermore, counsel argued that the case was filed against the respondents due to political rivalry. Hence, urges the Court for dismissing the revision Petition.

The decision of the court

The Court examined the witness in detail. The Court did not find any new facts or a valid statement by the witnesses that could support the prosecution and hence upheld the decision stating the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur rightly arrived at the conclusion and needs no interference. 

Click here for the judgment. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author