High Court of TripuraCrl.Rev.P./102/2007dismissed

Marani Nama v. Dilip Datta And ORS.

2015-01-22Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra19 pages

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA CRL.REV.P.No.102of2007& CRL.REV.P.No.103of2007 CRL.REV.P.No.102of2007 Petitioner: Smt.MaraniNama,

ByAdvocate:

-Versus- Respondent: 1. SriDilipDutta,

2. Smt.NamitaDutta,

3. TheStateofTripura, ! ! " ByAdvocate: " ##

CRL.REV.P.No.103of2007 Petitioner: 1. SriDulalNama,

2. SriRanjitNama,

ByAdvocate:

-Versus- Respondent: ByAdvocate: " BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA $ :07.11.2014 ! :22.01.2015 %

$ &' ( $: Yes No √ JUDGMENT&ORDER $

$ $ $

! )

! $

,-. /01 2 3 $ 3 # 104 400. !

,005400.

3 0-647 400. !

$ $

! %

$ "#-0 4005

$3# 10, 400. !

# * $

,005400.

3 10647400. !

$ ! *

1.08400. "# 9- 4005 ! %

$ $

3# 104 400.

3# 10, 400. + $

,4, 2 3

$ + 3# 104400. $

,005400.

3 10647400.

3# 104400. ! [2] "# 9- 4005

"# -0 4005

! !

$ [3]

$ 3# 104400.

$ $

! !

$ $

! :

! 3

! 0-114005

; "On the other hand, learned defence counsel submitted that in respect of the same incident the accused persons also instituted a case against the complainant andothersvidecaseNo.GR89of2006which is also pending before this Court for trial.

Therefore, he prayed for analogous trial of boththecases. Heard.Considered. PrayerforLd.APPisallowed. Issue fresh summons upon the rest witnesses including Dr. J.S. Reang, MO Jolaibari PHC through the CMO, South Tripura,Udaipur. This Court has no knowledge about thecaseNo.GR89/06.Therefore,theinstant casemaybefixedon16.11.2006forpassing necessary order in respect of the prayer of thelearneddefencecounsel. Fix16.11.2006fororder." '

15114005 $

! %

$; "Boththeaccusedonbailarepresent. Ld.APPispresent. Heardbothsidesinrespectofpetition filedonbehalfoftheaccused. Considering all pleas I find no merit on the petition filed on 09.11.2006 as the case GR 89/06 is also pending before this Ld.CourtatthestageofPWs. Hence,thispetitionisrejected. Issue fresh summons upon the remainingwitnessesimmediately. To21.12.2006forexaminationofrest witnesses. [4] 2 $

< Sudhir vs. State of M.P., (2001) 2 SCC 688 $ $ !

! 3

$ *

$ !

< Sudhirvs.StateofM.P.

; "8. It is a salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the sameday.Suchtwodifferentversionsofthe sameincidentresultingintwocriminalcases arecompendiouslycalled'caseandcounterI case'bysomeHighCourtsand'crossIcases' bysomeotherHighCourts.Waybackinthe nineteen hundred and twenties a Division BenchoftheMadrasHighCourt(Wallerand Cornish, JJ.) made a suggestion

that'a case and counterIcase arising out of the sameaffairshouldalways,ifpracticable,be tried by same court; and each party would represent themselves as having been the innocent victims of the aggression of the other.' 9. Close to its heels Jackson, J., made an exhortationtothethenlegislaturetoprovide a mechanism as a statutory provision for trial of both cases by the same court (vide

"# $

ThelearnedJudgesaidthus: 'Thereisnoclearlawasregardsthe procedure in counterIcases, a defect which the legislature ought to remedy. It is a generally recognized rule that such cases should be tried in quick succession by the same Judge, who should not pronounce judgment till the hearing of both casesisfinished.' 10. We are unable to understand why the legislature is still parrying to incorporate such a salubrious practice as a statutory requirement in the Code. The practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such crossIcasesshallbetriedbythesamecourt, can be summarised thus: (1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted beforehiswholecaseisbeforethecourt.

(2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts. (3) In reality the case and the counterIcase are, to all intentsandpurposes,differentorconflicting versionsofoneincident. 11.

one incident. This Court has given its approvaltothesaidpracticein %&

' ( ) # '* '++ ,-

Thetobe followed in such a situation has been succinctlydelineatedinthesaiddecisionand itcanbeextractedhere: "2. We think that the fair procedure toadoptinamatterlikethepresent where there are crossIcases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the crossIcases one aftertheother.Aftertherecordingof evidenceinonecaseiscompeted,he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear thecrossIcaseandafterrecordingall the evidence he must hear the argumentsbutreservethejudgment inthatcase.ThesamelearnedJudge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments.

Indecidingeachofthecases,hecan relyonlyontheevidencerecordedin that particular case. The evidence recordedinthecrossIcasecannotbe looked into. Nor can the Judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the crossIcase. Each case must be decidedonthebasisoftheevidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the crossIcase. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learnedJudgeoneaftertheother. [5] 2 Sudhir vs. State of M.P.

Nathi Lal vs. State of U.P : 1990 Supp SCC 145. 2 Nathi Lal vs. State of U.P,

! %

$ $

$ %

! *

( NathiLalvs.StateofU.P:1990SuppSCC145

$ %

$ !!

$ ! $

)

$ !

! $

$ !

! !

! %

$ %

* !

! 3 [6] " $

! ! $ +

3 #

104400. ! !

$ *

+ "

$ /016,7 3 3

; Nothing in this section shall be deemed authorize a High Court to covertafindingofacquittalintoone ofconviction. [7] ! $ $ 3 #

10,400. !

# *

$ *

$ $

//.

,4/ 2 3 [8]

$ $ $

//.

,4/ 2 3 [9] " $

,005400. 3 10647400. [10] : $

! ! (=1 $ :2# $

! # *

0,0/4005 -,0 $

< ( ! * 1- 4005

//.

,45 2 3 $ ! 2 6 (=17

$ !

# * $ $ ! <

!# * $

> % '

! *

$ ! < !

2 <

? !

$ ?

=< ! *

< = =

* *)

80 !

! [11]

6 (=47

! $ $

# * $ ! %

> $

# *

151 3 3 [12] 6 (=,7 <

(= 4

(=4 !

$ 6)< '1

! ! [13] " 6 (=/7

( =1

4 !

(=1

# *

=< $ @ $

A [14] > 6 (=87

6 (=17 0,0/4005 $

[15] % # $ 6 (=57 < $

$ ; "1. One incised wound, near left elbow,measuring1cmX1cm,round inshape. 2. One incised wound in the skull in theleftsidefrontal bone,measuring 1"length. According to my opinion, these injuries are simple in nature and caused by both sharp cutting and bluntweapon. After examining the victim Smt. Namit Datta, I found one small wound round in shape measuring 1 cm X 1 cm in the skull in the right parital region, one haematoma, in that area and according to my opinionthisinjuryissimpleinnature andcausedbybluntweapon."

=< (=5

! <

$ = ! [16] " $ 6 (=.7 $

! [17]

$6 (=97

$ !

$ * [18] * 6 (=-7

! $

$ [19] 6 (=107 =$

$ $

$ '

$ $

! $

! % 3

=< ; 'During investigation on Tahashil verification I came to learn that the ownerofthedisputedlandbelonged to one Jatindra Bhowmik under plot No.3326 and 3328 and under the possession of one Pulin Nama measuring20satakofland.Butitis not possible on my part to ascertaining whether said Bambo bushissituatedwithinthat20satak landornot.DuringinvestigationDilip

Datta did not able to show any proof/documents in regard to the ownership of said Bamboo Bush JatindraBhowmikisnotalive."

[20] '

(=1 ! $ $ $ < 2 $ $

(=1 $ ! (=4

' $!

! <

< !

! < ! (=, $ ! < ! (=/

= ! ( =1

! $

$ $

(=8

( =1

(=5 ' ! !

(=.

$ ! ! (=-

$ !

+ $ *

2 $! 2

+ $ 3# 10,400.

[21] 3# 104400.

(=, * $

(=1

! (=4 (=,

! (=/

! $ ! (=8# *

! $

(=5

(=.

! $ !

! % (=9" $ !

(=- >

" !

! $ ! (=10

$$ $

(= 11 $ 40 4005

,/1//.

,4, 2 3 0,0/4005 * !

6 (=47 (=14 *

$ ! % 32

2 $

< (=, ! $$ !

(=,

,/1C,4,2 3

$ @D

$ A

,41

; Whoever does any act with the intention or thereby causing hurt to any person, or with knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said 'voluntarilycausehurt'. [22] 2

$ (=,

(=, [23] '

$ $

,/1

,4, 2 3 ! !

[24] 2

3# 104 400.

3 !

! *

3 $ +

E3# JUDGE