Partly allowed

Suman Patari v. the State of Tripura

Tripura HC27 Jun 2017Crl.A./21/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reduced the appellant's conviction from rape-related offences to assault on modesty (Sections 354/448 IPC) and concurrent reduced sentences upon finding the facts insufficient for rape but proven for assault.

What did the court decide?

Conviction converted to Sections 354/448 IPC; sentences reduced to 15 months concurrent run; appellant ordered to surrender within one month.

Suman Patari Vs the State of Tripura — Tripura HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL A (J) No.21/2014

¶2

B E F O R E

¶3

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR T. VAIPHEI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPARTA

¶4

Present :

¶5

For the appellant : Mr. R. Datta, Advocate. Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate.

¶6

For the respondent : Mr. S. Sarkar, Public Prosecutor.

¶7

27.06.2017

¶8

Heard Mr. R. Datta, the learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. S. Sarkar, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶9

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-09-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in S.T. No.81 (ST/B) of 2013 convicting the appellant under Sections 448/376/511 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years with a fine of `1,000/- and, in default thereof, to suffer another simple imprisonment for 2(two) months. Both the sentences were run concurrently.

¶10

The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated at the outset. It is the case of the prosecution that on 2607-2013, the informant lodged written ejahar to the officer-incharge of Santirbazar police station to the effect that she was living singly in a mud-wall for 5(five) years as her parents had expired about 15 years back. On 25-07-2013 at around 6.30 p.m., the appellant (Sri Suman Patari), a resident of Mahendra Debnath Para suddenly entered her room, pressed her mouth and neck by hand and tried to rape her. After a long scuffling, she brought out a dao kept hidden under her bed for her selfdefence and inflicted a blow to the appellant. He then fled away from her room with bleeding injury. Subsequently, she informed the incident to her neighbours. On receipt of the ejahar from the informant, the officer-in-charge of Santirbazar police station registered the case as STB P.S. Case No.44/2013 under Sections 448/376/511 IPC and endorsed it to one Sub-Inspector of Police

¶11

CRL A(J) No.21/2014 Page 1 of 2

¶12

for investigation. After investigation of the case, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 448/376(1)/511 IPC. The trial Court, on the basis of the charge sheet, framed the charge under the said Sections to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After examining the witnesses of the prosecution and the accused under Section 313 CrPC, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

¶13

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, we are of the view that there is no dispute that the facts and circumstances of the case established by the prosecution do not make out a case of Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, but there are sufficient evidence for convicting the appellant under Sections 354/448 IPC.

¶14

Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant is converted to one under Sections 354/448 IPC. As the appellant is convicted under the aforesaid Sections, the sentences imposed upon him stand reduced to 15 months for both the offences. However, both the sentences are to run concurrently. The impugned judgment stands modified in the manner indicated above. Any period already undergone by him in custody shall be adjusted accordingly. The appellant shall surrender before the trial Court within 1(one) month from today to serve out the remaining period of both the sentences.

¶15

The appeal is disposed of. Transmit the L.C. records.

¶16

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶17

Dipesh

¶18

CRL A(J) No.21/2014 Page 2 of 2

Suman Patari v. the State of Tripura

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Patari v. the State of Tripura

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Datta Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Narayan Ch. Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Mina Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Rasheda Khatun and Anr. Vs Parvin Akter

Ms Newsco International Energy Services Inc. Vs Punit Agarwal and Ors.

Union of India Vs Biswajit Saha