Excerpt
The learned trial Judge’s conclusions cannot be defined as perverse, and there are no good and convincing reasons to revoke the acquittal of convicted persons based on the benefit of the doubt.
Facts
Sri Kripesh Sabdakar, the complainant, filed a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Fatikroy Police Station on 04.01.2015, alleging that on 02.01.2015 at around 7:30 a.m., Dipankar Sabdakar, Bhanu Sabdakar, Subhankar Sabdakar, and Dhirendra Sabdakar entered his house with a ‘lathi’ (stick) and began assaulting his nephew Litan Sabda. Litan Sabdakar explained that the delay in filing the FIR was due to his being preoccupied with the victim’s care. The case was filed in the trial Court. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are charged under Sections 447/302/323 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the learned Sessions Judge. After the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were charged under Sections 447/302/323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the learned Sessions Judge framed a charge against them. All the accused persons were found innocent in the trial. The petitioner filed an appeal against the decision of the District Court.
Petitioner’s Argument
The complainant’s learned senior counsel argued that the Judge should have believed the prosecution witnesses’ versions regardless of whether or not they were linked to the deceased. The related witnesses, according to learned Sr. counsel, were found to be eyewitnesses to the crime, having suffered injuries to their persons as a result of the accused persons’ assault. The learned Sr. counsel further argued that the contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ statements were minor and should be dismissed by the court. It was further determined that the accused persons had a simple and imminent general purpose to murder the deceased.
Respondent’s Arguments
The learned counsel appearing for the accused persons in support of the learned Sessions Judge’s acquittal decision first drew the attention to the fact that the prosecution had failed to show the actual location of the alleged crime. The scene of the crime had been changed from the versions of the prosecution witnesses, according to learned counsel for the accused persons, since some witnesses claimed that the incident occurred in the courtyard, while others stated that the incident occurred in the verandah, and some were found to be quite categorical that the incident occurred within a home. He may also argue that the prosecution failed to show that any of the relevant witnesses suffered a personal injury, but he would do so without any proof. No injury records were presented to the court to substantiate the prosecution’s claim. The learned counsel mentioned the Rajkishore Purohit Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 483 and argued that the district court favoured their decision on the respondent’s side.
Court’s Order
Following the above arguments, the trial court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations against the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, according to the eyewitnesses, several villagers rushed to the scene, and when they arrived, the attackers had fled the scene. However, none of the villagers came forward to endorse the relevant witnesses’ accounts. It also appeared that the prosecution had struggled to uncover the truth by presenting convincing evidence as to why the attackers assaulted Litan or his father on the date and time in question. The learned trial Judge’s conclusions cannot be defined as perverse, and there are no good and convincing reasons to revoke the acquittal of convicted persons based on the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Click here to read Sri Kripesh Sabdakar vs. The State of Tripura.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & 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.
