Surendra Reangandanr v. State Of Tripura And 4 ORS
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA W.P.(C)No.78of2009 1. SriSurendraReang,
2. SriRahamanReang,
!" #
$ ............Petitioners Versus 1. TheStateofTripura, $ % ! $ & !'( #
$ 2. Thecommissioner.Secretary, & $ !'( #
$ ! ) 3. TheDirectorGeneralofPolice, #
$ !) 4. SriSatyendraBasuRoyChoudhury, *$ % % !+$ ) % !
) !, #
$ . 5. SriBabulDas, *$ % % ! +$ *
, #
$ .........Respondents BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA - $ :'!) (% "'!) (% - $ ".!/01 : )'!) (% - $ "203 :
!)
')
:/453/5.3 6 07
:31.08.2015 , $ : Yes No √
JUDGMENT&ORDER 8 +
$ ! $ ( % %$ 9 .5!55!555: $ %
$
;$ % + < # $ !
+
%
+$ % % +
$ % % "3= /55/
% .24:.2>:15/:./5 8 :.43:./. *
% /? ) )% % .5:.1 @+ )%
( )% * % % + % ! $ +
/3.5/55/ $ % % 6
% !" #
$ 6
%
%! !+ $ ( % $ % % $ "3./55/
% 1>3:1=2) * + % /? ) )% + $
% # $ +
$ ( %
$ % % (
%%
% + % $%
/3.5/55/ %
$$ +$ $
- ! %$
( ! $ % % % &+ ( !
"3= /55/! %
$
#
"34 "#: /553 % %
% %% $ ! '
# $ + %
% 15? + % .2> * % /?
. ) )%#
$
/.5>/553
#
"34 "#: /553! $ + %A % [2] #
(% $ +
$ $ + ( % $ "3. /55/ $ ( ( %%
%
"3= /55/!
( % % $
% 1>3:1=2) *
% /? ) )% + % % #
5> "#: /55= )
! $ + %( %
% 1>3:1=2) *
! + ( ! + %A %
% /?
. ) )% # $ + % $
.5 + 3!555:! + $
*
$
%( % %
/25=/554+% $ $$ !
' & !
) 6 "?>/554#
$$ + +
54.//554
% $ + + $
$$ ! % % %
$$ #
% %%
& + % (
% %
.?
B CThus, on both counts, merit of the own case of the prosecution as well as the fact thatthe appellantshavingalreadytriedby another competent court of jurisdiction, theycouldnothavetriedagainbyanother courtforthesameoffenceand/orincident, the accused/appellants are entitled to get acquittal." [3] # %
$
$ $ * %
$!$$
$ '! % %
( % $ "102 $ % $ % + % +
$ % % * % $
%
% $
%
) % /5
/ + ) % /. *
% ! $
$ %+ *$$ % !'! %
State of Bihar vs. Morad Ali Khan and others, $ (1988)4SCC655,ManicaBedivs.Stateof Andhra Pradesh, $ (2011) 1 SCC 284, Institute of Chartered Accounts of India vs. Bimal Kumar Surana and other, $ 20111SCC534 State(NCTofDelhi)vs. Sanjay, $ (2014)9SCC772.) $ %$ %
$
$ (
) % /5 / *
) ' &
54.//554
) 6 "?>/554 $ (
! A
%%
A
$ % % )'! % %
% %
54.//554 %
# ! % + + $ A B (i) Whether the petitioners suffered any damageforanyStateactionforwhichthey are entitled to compensation as claimed and (ii)Whetherthepubliclawjurisdictioncan be invoked for awarding such compensation? [4] ) '! % $$
$ %%
%
$$ $%
% $ % $ % % ! ( $ % % +
A ! % + %
%
$ !
%%
9%
. ! %(
% $ $$
$ #! $ $ % % +
* $ $ % "3./55/+
% 1>3:1=2)*
+ % /? ) )%! + % "3=/55/+
%
.24:.2>:15?:./58:143:./. * + % /? ) )% '! % $ % $$ % "3= /55/ $ + %
% $
% % +
% % # !
+ % ,
% % (
% $ % ! ( % % ( %
- %
'! % % %
% + % % * ./ %
(
$ ".!/ 1 B CtheInvestigatingOfficeroftheKumarghat police station has got a secret information thatsomegroupofarmedextremistswere moving at Kalatilla area. Accordingly after entering the said fact in G.D. book, he proceededalongwithSub.DivisionalPolice Officer, one platoon of T.S.R. jawans towardsKaillitillaareatonabtheextremist andas soonasthey reachednearthesaid tilla and conducted search at that time some extremist opened fire towards them and they also replied by opening fire towardsthosemiscreants.
Aftersometime theyconductedsearchadjacenttothetong hutandduringsearchtheyhavefoundtwo Bengalipersonsandthreeaccusedpersons andthereaftertheycamebacktothepolice station and registered a case under Kumarghat P.S. Case No.56/2002 U/s 148/149/307/120(B)/385/121 and other Acts. This incident occurred on 24/25.10.2002.ButintheKamalpurP.S.an F.I.R.waslodgedbyoneSriDulalDeband which was charge sheeted under Section 395/364(A)ofIndianPenalCodeand27of theArmsActandthatincidenthappenedon 19.10.2002.
incident, one incident i.e. Kamalpur P.S. case for dacoity and kidnapping and Kumarghat P.S. case was for attempt to murder.Sothequestionofdoublejeopardy does not arise, though the Investigating OfficeroftheKumarghatP.S.recoveredthe kidnapped persons along with the accused persons and the accused are also F.I.R. named persons. But in the Kamalpur P.S., the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown miscreants. The plea of the petitioners regarding double jeopardy is not at all attracted." [5] # $ "2 3 (
%
%
( *
%
( ( %
%
$
% $ % $ (
% 155
[6] 7A !'! %
% $ % "3./55/+ 545=/551 % + $ )
6 !" #
$ ! $ />54/55= , ( % ! '! % %$ % %
%$ % $ % #
! %A $ #
"34 "#: /553 % "3= /55/ +
/.5>/553 6 ! " #
$ ! ! % )
6 ! $ % $ # % #
"34 "#: /553
B
"Firstly, that, both of you along with 3(three) others on 25.10.2002 at about 0530hoursatKallitillaunderpolicestation -Kumarghat were members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly opened fire from fire arms towards the informant, Sub.
Inspector S. Basu Roy Choudhury and his other accompanying police and Tripura State Rifle personnel with such intention and under such circumstances that if by thatactoffiringyouhadcausedthedeath of said Sub.Inspector S. Basu Roy Choudhury or any other of his accompanyingpoliceandTripuraStateRifle personnel, you would have been guilty of murder and as such, both of you have committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. andwithinmycognizance. Secondly,that,onthesamedate,timeand place both of you along with 3(three) others at the time of attacking the informant, Sub.Inspector S.
Basu Roy Choudhury and his accompanying police andTripuraStateRiflepersonnelhadused fire arms, but for using the said fire arms youhadnovaliddocumentorauthority,for which you have violated the provisions of Section 5 of the Arms Act and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and within mycognizance."
"5> "#: /55=! $ % "3. /55/ +B 'Firstly,thatyouon20.10.02at0030hrsat BamancherrainthehouseofSriDulalDeb, underKamalpurP.Scommitteddacoityand that you thereby committed an offence punishableu/s395ofI.P.C.andwithinmy cognizance. Secondly,thatyouontheabovementioned date time and place, kidnapped Sri Biplab DebandSriSibnarayanGourandkeptthem in detention and that your conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that the person so kidnapped may be put to death and you had done these act in order to compelsomebodytopayaransomandthat
youtherecommittedanoffencepunishable u/s 364(A) of I.P.C. and within my cognizance. Thirdly, that you on the above mentioned date, time and place have used fire arms, viz,pistol, gun etc.incontraventionofthe provisionofSection5ofArmsAct,forany illegalpurpose,towit,tocommitdacoityin thehouseofSriDulalDebandtokidnapSri Biplab Deb and Sri Shib Narayan Gour for ransomandthatyoutherebycommittedan offence punishable under Section 27(1) of theArmsActandwithinmycognizance." [8] - %$ (
% + % $ +
+
% % % +
$% ! %% % # $ % + 9 ' & + $
54.//5548 ( + % 155
$ + + %
% %$
% % %( % %A % % !+ %%( % %A % !
% 7% ! ' & % %% $ +
%$ % % : %
# %A
! $$ ! $$ % (
% ) % /5 /
*
%
$
B "2. No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."
# % %
$ 9 % ( %% * Makbool vs. State of Bombay,
$ (1953) SCR 730, Kalawati vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, $ (1953) SCR 546, State of Bombay vs. Apte,
$
AIR 1961 SC 29, Leo Roy vs. Superintendent,DistrictJail, $ AIR1958SC119 Assistant Customs Collector vs. Melwani, $ AIR 1970SC962, $ 9% %% % +) % /5 / $ $ % $ % $ + $ % %( % %A % ;7 % < % % 1 '
)%! .4>? $ ) % 1=? # % ! ! ((
$ %
$
% %
) % /5 / [9] % 155
+ $
% $ $$ %
$ % ( D
% 155
%
%
$
- $ $ % ! % 155
9 %
B "300.
. (1)Apersonwhohasoncebeentriedbya Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to betriedagainforthesameoffence,noron
the same facts for any other offence for whichadifferentchargefromtheonemade against him might have been made under sub. section (1) of section 221, or for whichhemighthavebeenconvictedunder sub.section(2)thereof. (2)A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinctoffenceforwhichaseparatecharge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub. section (1) of section220. (3)A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last.
mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened,orwerenotknowntotheCourt tohavehappened,atthetimewhenhewas convicted. (4)A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, andtriedfor,anyotheroffenceconstituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged. (5)A persondischargedunder section258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Courtbywhichhewasdischargedorofany other Court to which the first. mentioned Courtissubordinate.
(6)Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, (10 of 1897 ) or of section188ofthisCode.Explanation..The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposesofthissection."
$ % + % %
$
$ (
$
+%
% %$
% % %( % %A % % + % %( % %A + % !
% ! % % + %
% (
% . % //. + % ( %( %
% / 8 % /!1 2 % 155
! 9% $ ( % %
$
#!
%A % % % $ % * % % A % % +
%% % % % % % A % + % % %
% ! + % + %( % +
! % A % $$ +
+ % ( $$ + + %( % %A [11] #
) % /5
$ (
$ % $
! $ $ % $ % % -
% ( ! % $ + $ % % *
(
(
' &
54.//554
) 6 "?>/554+ * .?
$ +
% % :
%
[12] , $ %
( $ $ $ % %
#
"5> "#: /55= % + % +
#
"34 "#: /553E #
) % /5 /
*
% 9 % $ + $ % % + % $
# ! (
$
%
$
% % # $ $$
$
(
%$ %
( +
! %( % %A - % % + ! + ( *%$ $
% %
+ $ + % $ + $
# % %$
% + %
& % !
%$ ( $
*
$
$ % (
%$ % - $ $ % ! + $$ $ % + $ 9%
ManicaBedivs.StateofAndhraPradesh. 22. Article 20(2) embodies a protection against a second trial and conviction for the same offence. The fundamental right guaranteed is the manifestation of a long struggle by the mankind for human rights. A similarguaranteeistobefoundinalmostall civilised societies governed by rule of law. Thewell.knownmaxim
embodies the well.
established common law rule that no one should be put on peril twice for the same offence. referred to this universal maximofthecommonlawofEnglandthatno manistobebroughtintojeopardyofhislife morethanonceforthesameoffence. 23. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20(2) has its roots in common law maxim amanshallnot bebroughtintodangerforoneandthesame offence more than once. If a person is charged again for the same offence, he can plead, as a complete defence, his former conviction or as it is technically expressed, take the plea of This in essence is the common law principle.
The corresponding provision in the American Constitution is enshrined in that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person shall be subject for the same offence tobetwiceputinjeopardyoflifeorlimb.The principle has been recognised in the existing law in India and is enacted in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This was the inspiration and background for incorporatingsub.clause(2)intoArticle20of theConstitution.Buttheambitandcontentof the guaranteed fundamental right are much narrower than those of the common law in Englandorthedoctrineof'doublejeopardy'in theAmericanConstitution.
[13]
* $ $
$ $
% + % + %
#
"5> "#: /55=# $ +
$ (
$
( .?
54.//554 ' &
) 6 "?> /554, $ % % $ ( $ % +
($ # $
$ $
%$ % ) $
9 %
! $ % $
9 %
!
$ % ( $$ % %
%% % [14] &( ! +
$
%% %%
!
&+ ( !
% JUDGE