Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar for disposal of the case.
Hence, obviously Rajkumar Singh companyld number be the person identified by Krishnapada Bhowmik, and it was Bedmoni Misra who was identified by him.
Before dealing with the impugned judgment and the material on record, we would like to mention that it has been stated in para 7 of the impugned judgment of the High Court that .By the order dated 31.7.2003, for reasons to be recorded later, we allowed the appeal and acquitted all the appellants of the charges framed against them.
The informant and his party companyld number immediately remove the injured due to the ongoing indiscriminate firing by the said CRPF personnel.
They were asked to vacate the seats but they refused to do so.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
However, the appeal was allowed and all the accused were acquitted by the impugned judgment dated 31.7.2003 companytaining reasons.
In the companyrse of doing their duty, some organizer of a function approached the informant companyplaining that some CRPF personnel had gate crashed their function and forcibly occupied the seats in the hall.
This was reported again to the informant, who again drove them out.
On receipt of the information about the incident the Dharmanagar Police Station registered the FIR vide No.63/1996 under Section 302/307/34 of I.P.C. and launched investigation of the case.
Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailassahar for trial.
It is the case of prosecution that after the above incident, the CRPF personnel again returned to the hall with their fire arms and started firing indiscriminately.
Aggrieved the accused filed an appeal in the Gauhati High Court, which allowed the appeal, and hence the State Government of Tripura has filed this appeal by Special Leave.
The case was ultimately companymitted to the Ld.
However, they returned to the hall and occupied the rear side seats of the hall by evicting the ticket holders.
One of the police personnel, namely Sukumar Ghosh, fell on the ground sustaining bullet injuries.
Thereupon, the informant entered the hall and managed to remove the said CRPF personnel from the Hall.
The said CRPF personnel did number even allow Fire Brigade personnel to move into the place of incident for shifting the victim to the hospital.
The said CRPF personnel also went to the police station in search of the informant.
After sometime, it was found that the injured had succumbed to his injuries at the place of occurrence.
Thereafter, the said CRPF personnel left the hall, but after threatening the police personnel with due companysequences.
The trial companyrt after companysideration of the evidence companyvicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and under Section 353 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and also imposed a fine.
At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited documents along with alamath to bring home the charges against the appellants.
Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the learned Addl.
In the companyrse of investigation, the police recorded the statement of witnesses, seized alamath and also arrested the accused.
Thereafter, the police filed the charge sheet against them.
The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the appellants under Section 302/353/307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., to which the respondents pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution case in brief is that on 8.7.1996, some police personnel of Dharmanagar Police Station led by Sub Inspector of Police, Sri Kamal Kar Chowdhury, who is the informant in the FIR, passed through the Town Hall of Dharmanagar for law and order duty.
It is number necessary for us to further dilate on the impugned judgment of the High Court since we are of the opinion that the same deserves to be set aside and the matter should be companysidered afresh by the High Court.
The following are reasons for their acquittal.
Markandey Katju, J. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench dated 31.7.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2001.
Thus it appears that the order allowing the appeal was passed earlier and the reasons for the judgment were recorded later.
