Blog

Case title:  Sri Pradip Debroy Vs The State of Tripura

Case no.:  CRL.A(J) NO.40 OF 2022

Dated on: 12th February 2024

Quorum:  Hon’ble. MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD                    Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. and reference under Section 366 of Cr.P.C. arise out of common Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 23.11.2022 passed in connection with ST(T-1)09 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai, Tripura whereby the learned Court below convicted the appellant for the commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, i.e. to suffer S.I. for 2 months and convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to death as per law.

The brief fact of this case is that on 26.11.2021 at about 11.00 p.m. the brother of the informant namely, Sri Pradip Debroy went to sleep after dinner. After that all of a sudden, the informant and other inmates of the house including his elder brother Amalesh Debroy heard a cry coming from the room of Pradip Debroy. Immediately they rushed to the room of Sri Pradip Debroy and told him to open the door but he did not. Then they broke the door of the veranda and went near the door of the room. When they peeped through an opening of the door, they saw the dead body of Aditi, the younger daughter of Pradip lying on the ground. They also noticed that Pradip was attacking his elder daughter and his wife with a big crowbar. After a while, he opened the door and chased the informant and others to kill. The informant Raju Debroy and his mother and others could manage to save themselves but the elder brother of the informant namely, Amalesh could not run away. Amalesh was killed by Pradip with a crowbar infront of the room of Amrit Debroy who was the uncle of the informant. When their uncle tried to resist, he was also attacked. After that, on hearing the sound of a vehicle he became naked and started running with the crowbar along the Bir Chowmohoni road. At that time, the vehicle of police came and when it stopped in front of the house of the Pradhan, Pradip attacked one police with a crowbar and also attacked the vehicle of the police. He also chased police and went along Bir Chowmhoni road. He attacked one Autorickshaw and also attacked one Krishna Das and his son Karnabir Das. Subsequently, the informant learned that the injured police officer succumbed to his injuries at GBP hospital. It is also learned by the informant that the injured Krishna Das was declared brought dead at Khowai Hospital. Karnabir Das, the son of Krishna Das and Smt. Mina Paul (Debroy), the wife of Pradip Debroy suffered serious injuries and were shifted to GBP Hospital. It is further alleged that Pradip killed his elder daughter Mandira. The informant came to know that the name of the police officer who died was Inspector Satyajit Mallik. Hence the FIR was lodged by Raju Debroy against his brother Pradip Debroy.

 ISSUES

• Whether the accused Pradip Deb Roy attacked and murdered his younger daughter namely, Aditi Deb Roy, elder daughter Mandira Deb Roy, elder brother Amalesh Deb Roy, another person Krishna Das and Inspector Satyajit Mallik and that thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC ?
• Whether the accused on or about the aforesaid date and time did an act to wit assault with such intention (or knowledge) and under such circumstances that if by that act he had caused the death of his wife Mina Paul and Karnabir Das he had been guilty of murder and also caused hurt to Smt Mina Paul and Karnabir Das and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC ?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

This section prescribes the punishment for murder as “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 307 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 307 of the IPC prescribes punishment for attempt to murder. The punishment can extend up to 10 years and in case the victim is hurt, then the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The counsel contended that a normal human being without any motive, pre-plan and intention would not commit such type of crime of killing 5(five) persons one after another and injuring 2(two) other. The convict appellant after murdering his two minor daughters was moving in a naked condition on the road and thereafter, he committed further murder. The learned Trial Court did not consider the sequence of commission of offence as a sound mind person would not be in a position to do so. The convict appellant somehow became abnormal and he could not say what the consequence of his activities was. The convict appellant has no previous enmity with the victims. So, no prior plan or motive of the convict appellant is established. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to the incident, the convict appellant was known to be a good and loving person in the locality which is evident from the evidence of various witnesses. T He had very good relations with all the family members but at the time of the incident, he was acting like a madman. Convict-Pradip used to love his children very much. He also used to love his family members. Mr.H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel urged this Court to take a lenient view keeping in mind the fact that convict appellant had no prior bad record and no motive while committing the crime. Stating thus, learned counsel advocated to convert the death sentence of the convict-appellant into life imprisonment.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The counsel contended that the Judgment and order of conviction as passed by the Court below is just and proper and needs no further interference. Learned P.P., also stated that the question of the sanity and motive of the convict-appellant was never raised before the Court below. Stating thus, learned P.P. urged this Court to confirm the impugned judgment by confirming the death sentence and not to take any lenient view.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court observed that during the course of hearing, Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the convict-appellant submitted that the convict-appellant had no motive to commit the said crime. To support his argument, the court considered the statements of the witnesses being that the convict was a good person and he was having very good relations with all the family members. The said witnesses further stated that the convict loved his children and family members. Here it is seen in the above-mentioned statements that admittedly, no motive has been established behind the commitment of such a heinous crime. But, it cannot be said that that crime committed without any motive is not a crime and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the convict-appellant also contended that there was no mens rea to kill the deceased and injure the victims. From the evidence of various eyewitnesses, it was evident that the convict-appellant had not preplanned and committed the murders and caused injuries. But a crime committed without any mens rea does not entitle to acquittal. This Court negated the issue of mens rea against the convict appellant. The question arose in the mind of the court whether there was any temporary  insanity condition and the court held that unless there is any strong reason that would influence the mind of the convict-appellant, the instant incident cannot be reasonably believed in the light of the evidence and the witnesses who have certified the convict appellant as a businessman, good person, affectionate towards and having no complaints in the neighbourhood, his family members, loving his children, taking care of his wife.

The Court was however convinced that the Trial Court needs no interference as that the appellant-convict was guilty of committing murders and grievous hurt and opines that the appellant convict is liable to be punished under the charges/offences as they are proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the death sentence of the convict was converted into life imprisonment till he breathes his last in jail without any benefit of remission. The Court felt that he should be kept in isolation, by keeping him away from other inmates and under surveillance.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Fathima Sara Sulaiman

Click here to view judgement