A.C. Upadhyay, J.@mdashNone appears on behalf of the Petitioner. Heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State Respondent.
2. This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment dated 04.06.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura, in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2002, affirming the judgment dated 11.09.2002, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura, West Tripura, in G.R. Case No. 189 of 1998, whereby the Petitioner was convicted u/s 323 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC and was sentenced to suffer RI for 6(six) months.
3. The prosecution case, as stated in the FIR, in short, reveals that on 08.08.1998, at about 10.00 am, while the son of the informant(Tulshi), namely, Nandan Das, was at the water supply point for fetching water, the accused Sayed Ali, raised objection on fetching water by Nandan. As a result of which, an altercation took place between Nandan and accused Sayed. In the meantime, other accused, namely, Ana Miah, came to the place of occurrence, and started assaulting Nandan Das, and dragged him towards paddy field. The informant i.e. the mother of the victim, on hearing the cry of her son rushed to the place of occurrence, and tried to rescue her son. But she was also assaulted by the accused, as a result of which, she sustained injuries. Both Nandan and Tulshi, were brought to the hospital for treatment and the incident was reported to the Sonamura Police Station by the informant, Tulshi Das, and on the basis of the Ejahar, a case was registered under Sonamura P.S. Case No. 70 of 98 under Sections 341/325/34 IPC and investigation was launched. The Investigating Officer of the case, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet under Sections 341/323 IPC read with 34 IPC.
4. During the trial, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura, after recording the evidence of the witnesses, found the accused-persons guilty, and accordingly, convicted the accused-persons under Sections 341/323 IPC and sentenced accused-Sayed Ali to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and sentenced the present accused-Petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the accused-Petitioner preferred appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura. The learned appellate Court, after due evaluation of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused Appellant, maintained the conviction and sentence, awarded by the learned trial Court, in so far as Sayed Ali is concerned. However, the sentence, so far convict Sayed Ali is concerned, was reduced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Now this revision petition has been preferred on behalf of Sayed Ali against the aforesaid impugned appellate judgment.
6. Learned Counsel for the accused-Petitioner is absent. However, Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., by taking this Court to the evidence and materials on record, has apprised the salient features of the case required for dealing with the present revision petition. On perusal of the revision petition filed by the accused-Petitioner, it appears that delay in lodging the FIR has been agitated in the revision petition. On careful perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the informant (Tulshi) and her son, Nandan, were seriously injured due to the assault, and they were shifted to the hospital for treatment of their injuries. Cause of delay in preferring to file the FIR has also been explained by the witnesses as well as by the investigating officer.
7. On evaluation of the evidence on record, it clearly transpires that the victims themselves have categorically stated as to how they were assaulted by the accused-Petitioner. The evidence of the victim could not be assailed by the defence. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained in the facts and circumstances of the case. On careful perusal of the materials on record, I do not find any illegality in passing the impugned order of conviction and sentence by the learned appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court.
8. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions, the revision petition filed by the accused-Petitioner is dismissed.
9. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. has pointed out that the present accused-Petitioner has already been convicted in a murder trial, and has been undergoing sentence of life imprisonment, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. ST.24(WT/S)01 u/s 302 IPC.
10. Mr. Ghosh has also pointed out that in terms of the provisions of Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure when a person, already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life, is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. The provisions of Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure read as follows:
Section 427 - Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order u/s 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.
11. However, in the absence of the relevant materials on record, I do not deem it justified to give a finding on the issue raised by the learned Addl. P.P. at this stage of the proceeding. Therefore, the issues aforesaid may be raised at appropriate time by the Petitioner, in accordance with law.
12. This revision petition is dismissed with the above observations.
