http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  927 of 2004

PETITIONER: State of Tripura

RESPONDENT: Ram Bir Singh & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/05/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1.      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.

2.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.      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.  In the course of doing  their duty, some organizer of a function approached the informant  complaining that some CRPF personnel had gate crashed their function and  forcibly occupied the seats in the hall.  They were asked to vacate the seats  but they refused to do so.  Thereupon, the informant entered the hall and  managed to remove the said CRPF personnel from the Hall.  However, they  returned to the hall and occupied the rear side seats of the hall by evicting  the ticket holders.  This was reported again to the informant, who again  drove them out.  This time, there was some scuffling between the informant  and the said CRPF personnel in which one of them dealt a blow over the left  eye of the informant due to which the latter sustained serious injury.   Thereafter, the said CRPF personnel left the hall, but after threatening the  police personnel with due consequences.

4.      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.  One of the police personnel, namely Sukumar Ghosh, fell  on the ground sustaining bullet injuries.  The informant and his party could  not immediately remove the injured due to the ongoing indiscriminate firing  by the said CRPF personnel.  The said CRPF personnel did not 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.

5.      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.  In the course 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.

6.      The case was ultimately committed to the Ld. Sessions Judge, North  Tripura, Kailassahar for trial.  The learned Sessions Judge framed the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

charges against the appellants under Section 302/353/307 read with Section  34 of I.P.C., to which the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be  tried.  Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the  learned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar for disposal of  the case.

7.      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.  

8.      The trial court after consideration of the evidence convicted 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.

9.      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.

10.     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 : \005\005\005."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 following are reasons for their  acquittal."

11.    Thus it appears that the order allowing the appeal was passed earlier  and the reasons for the judgment were recorded later.  In our opinion this  was a very unsatisfactory way of disposing of the case.

12.     Moreover, while it is stated in para 7 of the impugned judgment that  by order dated 31.7.2003 the appeal was allowed and the accused acquitted,  but it was also stated therein that the reasons will be recorded later.   However, the appeal was allowed and all the accused were acquitted by the  impugned judgment dated 31.7.2003 containing reasons.  We find it difficult  to believe that reasons were recorded on 31.7.2003, when an order allowing  the appeal (but without giving reasons) was said to have been passed on the  same day.

13.     We went through the entire record and could not find the date on  which the reasons for the impugned judgment were recorded.

14.     Thus the learned Judges of the Gauhati High Court appear to have  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.  Thus the impugned judgment appears to be ante dated.

15.     We are only making our observations on this unsatisfactory way of  disposing of cases in the hope that this mistake will not be repeated again by  the courts in this country.

16.     Apart from the above, we would also like to observe that the High  Court has not considered the evidence and material on record in a  satisfactory manner in the impugned judgment.  The incident in question  was a very serious matter and hence it required very careful consideration of  the evidence and material on record.  In this case the CRPF personnel  attacked the local police mainly because the local police asked the CRPF  personnel to vacate some seats in a function for which the CRPF personnel  did not have any tickets.  In our opinion the local police was absolutely right  in insisting that the CRPF personnel who did not have tickets for the seats

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

they were occupying, should vacate the same, and the CRPF personnel  committed a gross illegality and misconduct in attacking the police  personnel as a consequence.  The CRPF personnel who are responsible for  this incident deserve severe punishment both on the criminal side as well as  in departmental proceedings.  No one can be allowed to take the law into his  own hands.  If that is permitted the rule of law and democracy will collapse.

17.     The only question which remains is the identity of the persons who  assaulted the police personnel.  In this connection, in our opinion the High  Court has not dealt with the matter at all in a satisfactory manner.  It was a  very serious incident in which CRPF personnel attacked the local police with  arms and in which one of the local police personnel was killed.  Hence, the  matter should have been dealt with very carefully by the High Court but we  regret to say that has not been done.   

18.     The prosecution had produced as many as 24 witnesses.  The   prosecution had proved unequivocal that the CRPF personnel had committed  the offence, and we are in full agreement with the same.

19.     As regards the identity of the accused, the matter has been dealt with  in great detail by the trial court but we are afraid that the High Court has not  probably adverted to the points which had been considered by the trial court  in this connection.  For instance, the prosecution had produced the Arms  Issue Register of the CRPF Authority to prove that the said Authority had  issued arms and ammunitions to the accused person, and the Investigating  Officer had seized those Self Loading Rifles from the CRPF Authority on  production of the same by them.  The C.F.S.L. also corroborated the fact  after examining those Self Loading Rifles that those were used very recently  and were used for firing purpose.

20.     The trial court has observed that all the eye witnesses of the  prosecution clearly, categorically and emphatically stated that the accused  CRPF personnel had opened fire indiscriminately from their self loading  rifles and the defence had not specifically denied this.  This is another point  which should have been considered carefully by the High Court but that has  not been done.   

21.     As regards the point which has been emphasized by the High Court in  great detail, namely, that there was an opportunity to show the accused to the  witnesses before they were put up in the Test Identification Parade, the High  Court has not considered the fact that the accused had been kept in police  custody in a different police station and not in the police station to which the  witnesses belonged.  The accused persons were arrested from Panisagar  Police Station, and they were produced before the officer-in-charge of the  said police station.  However, it has come on record that the Investigating  Officer had produced them before the Chief Judicial Magistrage, North  Tripura, Kailashahar and then they were kept in Kailashahar Police Station,  which is different from Panisagar Police Station.  This being so, the High  Court should have considered whether there was opportunity to show the  accused to the witnesses before the Test Identification Parade.   

22.     Learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the  evidence of PW-18, who was the Magistrate before whom the Test  Identification Parade was held on 20.7.1996.  He has mentioned that in the  second Test Identification Parade, held that day, the accused Bedmoni Misra  was mixed up with CRPF personnel of the same face feature, health and  height etc., during the test identification parade and witness Krishnapada  Bhowmik identified the suspect, Rajkumar Singh and could not identify any  other suspect.  In our opinion there was an obvious mistake here in the  evidence of the learned Magistrate, and it was not Rajkumar Singh whom  Krishnapada Bhomick identified.  This mistake becomes obvious when we  see the report of the Test Identification Parade and also from the fact that  since mention has been made in the Magistrate’s evidence that it was  Bedmoni Misra with whom 11 CRPF personnel  were mixed up.  Hence,   obviously Rajkumar Singh could not be the person identified by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Krishnapada Bhowmik, and it was Bedmoni Misra who was identified by  him.

23.     It is not 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 considered afresh by the High Court.  In  the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court  and remand the matter to the High Court which shall hear the appeal afresh  and shall consider all the evidence and material on record properly and then  pronounce its judgment.  Since the matter relates to an incident of 1996, we  request the High Court to consider the feasibility of deciding the appeal as  expeditiously as possible.   

24.     Any observation made in this judgment shall not influence the High  Court in deciding the appeal.  

25.     The appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment of the High Court is  set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision.