LexSTATE OF TRIPURA versus RAM BIR SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATEOFTRIPURA A v. RAM BIR SINGH AND ORS. MAY 8, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Appeal before High Court against conviction-Appreciation of evidence-In a case of indiscriminate firing by CRP F personnel injuring and C killing local police personnel, trial court recording conviction of accused CRPF personnel-Acquittal by High Court-Held, High Court has not considered evidence and material on record in a satisfactory manner- Prosecution unequivocally proved that CRPF personnel committed the offence-Matter remanded to High Court for hearing appeal afresh after D considering evidence and material on record properly-Pena/ Code, 1860- ss. 3021355 rlw s. 34. Judgment-High Court recording acquittal in a case of conviction by trial court u/s 3021355 rlw s. 34 !PC-Judgment of High Court stating that for reasons to be recorded later, appeal allowed and accused acquitted-At E the same time giving reason for acquittal in the same judgment-Held, High Court committed irregularities-Impugned judgment appears to be ante dated-Practice and Procedure. Respondents-accused, who were CRPF personne~ were prosecuted under sections 302/353/307 read with Section 34 IPC. Thee prosecution case was F that on the day of incident, the respondents, in a function, entered the Hall without tickets and when the local police tried to drive them out they manhandled the police personnel and one of them dealt a blow on the police officer and left the Hall, after threatening the police personnel with dire consequences. After some time, they again returned to the hall with firearms G and started firing indiscriminately. In the firing one police personnel received serious injuries. The respondents did not allow the Fire Brigade staff to remove the Victim to the hospital The injured died at the spot. The trial court convicted the accused under ss. 302134 and 353134 IPC. Appeal of the accused having been allowed by the High Court, the State filed the instant appeal. 117 H 118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD: 1. It appears that the order allowing the appeal was passed by the High Court earlier and the reasons for the judgment were recorded later. This was a very unsatisfactory way of disposing of the case. The High Court B committed two irregularities in delivering the judgment--(i) It passed the operative portion of the judgment in the criminal appeal earlier but purported to record the reasons later and (ii) The date of the judgment giving reasons is mentioned as 31.7.2003, which does not appear to be correct as in para 7 of the judgment it is mentioned that the reasons will be given after 31.7.2003, C Thus, the impugned judgment appears to be ante dated. These observations on the unsatisfactory way of disposing of cases are made in the hope that this mistake will not be repeated by the courts in this country. [Para 11, 14 and 15) [121-A-F) 2.1. Besides, the High Court has not considered the evidence and D material on record in a satisfactory manner. The incident in question was a very serious matter and hence it required very careful consideration of the evidence and material on record. In the instant case, attacked the loal police mainly because the local police askedtge CRPF personnel to vacate some seats in a function for which the CRPF personnel the CRPF personnel did not have any tickets. The only question which remains is the identity of the persons E who assaulted the police personnel. In this connection, the High Court has not dealt with the matter at all in a satisfactory manner. The matter in this regard has been dealt with in a great detail by the trial court but the High Court has not probably adverted to the points which had been considered by the trial court in .this connection. The prosecution had produced the Arms p Issue Register of the CRPF Authority to prove that the said Authority had issued arms and ammunitions to·the accused persons, and the Investigating Officer had seized those Self Loading Rifles from the CRPF personnel. The CFSL also cooroborated the fact after examining those Self Loading Rifles that those were used very recently and were used for firing purpose. G [121-F-G; 122-B-E) [Paras 16, 17 and 19) 2.2. The trial court has observed that all the eye witnesses of the prosecution clearly, categorically and emphatically s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.