SHIBU DEB Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
LAWS(TRIP)-2019-8-2
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on
August 02,2019
Shibu Deb
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TRIPURA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KALU VS. STATE OF M.P [REFERRED TO]BABU VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
PARAMJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [REFERRED TO]
BALKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
HANUMANT GOVIND NARGUNDKAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDA REDDY KRISHNA VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
ANANT CHINTAMAN LAGU VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
RAGHAV PRAPANNA TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MATRU ALIAS GIRISH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAHMAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL PANGASA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHIVNARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN JOSHI STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:LOONKARAN HANSRAJ [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAVINDRA PRAKASH MITTAL [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH GAYATRIBAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SUKHAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOUSAM SINGHA ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. PALTAN MALLAH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SATISH [REFERRED TO]
UJJAGAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH ALIAS SACHIN JAGDISH JOSHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. KISHANPAL [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH BHAI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MUSHEER KHAN ALIAS BADSHAH KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
PARAMJEET SINGH ALIAS PAMMA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA KUMAR PAL ALIAS DARA SINGH VS. REPUBLIC OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. RAMESH [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMAL GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. KISHANBHAI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
SHAHID KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNEGOWDA & ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARKALGUD POLICE [REFERRED TO]
REENA HAZARIKA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S.TALAPATRA,J. -
(1.)The appellants were charged under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC separately for committing murder of Lila Datta by hatching up conspiracy to do the said illegal act of murder. After a regular trial the appellants were convicted. The appellant No.1 (Shibu Deb), the appellant No.2 (Gita Deb) and the appellant No.3 (Priya Deb) were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Again those appellants along with the appellant No.4 (Bipul Datta) was convicted separately under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the IPC. As consequence of the said conviction the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. The appellants No.1, 2 and 3 were further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a file of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. But it was ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention the appellants had suffered during the investigation of the trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence of imprisonment under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.03.2015 delivered in S.T.(Type-1) 36 of 2014 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.5 (the fast track court) are challenged in this appeal.
(2.)The prosecution against the appellants was launched based on the complaint [Exbt.1] filed by one Subhas Das [PW-1] disclosing that on 12.02.2014 at about 6 p.m. the appellant No.1, father-in-law of the appellant No.4, the appellant No.2, wife of the appellant No.1 and mother-in-law of the appellant No.4, the appellant No.3, wife of the appellant No.4 and daughter of the appellants No.1 and 2 had poured kerosene on the informant's sister and set her ablaze in order to commit murder to achieve their nefarious object. On 12.02.2014, according to the informant, all the appellants come to the house of his sister and initially started torturing her mentally and physically and thereafter, committed the murder in terms of the premeditated design.
(3.)On the basis of the said complaint dated 12.02.2014, East Agartala P.S. Case No.22 of 2014 under Sections 302/120(B)/341 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation by the police. On completion of the investigation, the final report was filed sending up the appellants for facing up the trial for committing offence punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Since those offences are exclusively triable by the court of sessions the police papers were committed to that court. The Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala had in the course of the time transferred the said case to the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5 (the fast track court) for trial in accordance with law. The said Addl. Sessions Judge or the trial court having taken the cognizance of the offence and on appreciation of the materials available in the final report framed the charge against the appellants as stated above. The appellants denied the charge and pleaded innocence. Thus the trial commenced.
(2.)The prosecution against the appellants was launched based on the complaint [Exbt.1] filed by one Subhas Das [PW-1] disclosing that on 12.02.2014 at about 6 p.m. the appellant No.1, father-in-law of the appellant No.4, the appellant No.2, wife of the appellant No.1 and mother-in-law of the appellant No.4, the appellant No.3, wife of the appellant No.4 and daughter of the appellants No.1 and 2 had poured kerosene on the informant's sister and set her ablaze in order to commit murder to achieve their nefarious object. On 12.02.2014, according to the informant, all the appellants come to the house of his sister and initially started torturing her mentally and physically and thereafter, committed the murder in terms of the premeditated design.
(3.)On the basis of the said complaint dated 12.02.2014, East Agartala P.S. Case No.22 of 2014 under Sections 302/120(B)/341 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation by the police. On completion of the investigation, the final report was filed sending up the appellants for facing up the trial for committing offence punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Since those offences are exclusively triable by the court of sessions the police papers were committed to that court. The Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala had in the course of the time transferred the said case to the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5 (the fast track court) for trial in accordance with law. The said Addl. Sessions Judge or the trial court having taken the cognizance of the offence and on appreciation of the materials available in the final report framed the charge against the appellants as stated above. The appellants denied the charge and pleaded innocence. Thus the trial commenced.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.