Sri Gokul Das S/o. Late Surendra Das Resident of Haripur P.S. Belonia District – v. – The State of Tripura
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl. A. (J) No. 71 of 2009 Sri Gokul Das S/o. Late Surendra Das Resident of Haripur P.S. Belonia District – South Tripura – Vs – The State of Tripura …………Convict-Appellant …………Respondent B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA For the appellant : Mr. R. Datta, Advocate. For the respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. R. C. Debnath, Addl. PP. Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & order : 10.07.2013. Yes No Whether fit for reporting : JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 02. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the CrPC) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.06.2008 Crl. A. (J) No. 71 of 2009 Page 1 of 5 2 delivered in case No. ST 18 (ST/B) of 2008 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura. By the said judgment and order the appellant has been convicted under Section 489-B and 489-C of the IPC for possession of the counterfeited currency notes and for using those notes as genuine and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 489-B of the IPC and to suffer RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 489-C of the IPC and in default of paying the fine for each offence there shall be additional SI for 6 months. 03. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant purchased some materials from the informant, PW-8, by producing a fake currency note of Rs.500/- and when the said currency was produced to another businessman by the informant he had refused to accept the said fake currency note. On the following Saturday the appellant appeared in that shop again and purchased some articles and gave another currency note of Rs.500/-. The said currency note was resembling the former one. The informant suspected that the appellant was pushing the fake currency notes and he called out the other co-shop owners of that area and detained the appellant. Thereafter, at the instance of the informant, the appellant was produced in the police station where the police searched the appellant and recovered 8 Nos. of fake currency notes of Rs.500/- on preparing the seizure list in presence of the witnesses. On such report, Santirbazar PS Case No.30 of 2004 under Section 489-B was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, PW-12, Babulal Debnath, Sub-Inspector of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Government of Tripura has submitted the charge-sheet under Crl. A. (J) No. 71 of 2009 Page 2 of 5 3 Section 489-B and 489-C of the IPC. On taking cognizance, the case was transmitted to the Court of the Sessions Judge as the offences are triable by the Court of Sessions. The Addl. Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia framed the charge under Section 489-B and 489-C of the IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 04. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 12 witnesses including the informant (PW-8), the IO (PW-12) and the seizure witnesses namely Manik Sen (PW-2) and Imam Hossen (PW- 3). 05. Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the appellant has confined his submission on two aspects viz. (1) whether the notes related to the investigation were fake or not inasmuch as there was no forensic examination report placed in the evidence and (2) whether the seizure of the fake currency notes has been proved or not as both the seizure witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) denied to support the incidence of seizure. 06. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has conceded to that submission. It appears from the statement of PW-2 that the seizure was made in the Baikhora market whereas the informant namely Lafruchai Mog (PW-8) has stated that he took the appellant to the police station. In the first information report (Exbt.P/1) the informant has categorically stated, “Then I caught him and appeared at the Manpathar Outpost; narrated the incident to the officer-in-charge and handed the fake note over (to him). Then as the ‘darogababu’ (Police officer) interrogated the Crl. A. (J) No. 71 of 2009 Page 3 of 5 4 said person, he himself informed that he had 8 more notes of this kind. The said person brought out the fake notes from his pocket and gave those to the ‘darogababu’ (Police officer) in front of me. The numbers of the said notes were 4AP828088 to 4AP828092, 4AP825304, 4AP825305, and 4AP828098.” PW-8 has not stated that PW-2 and PW-3 were present when the fake currency notes were seized from the possession of the appellant. Even during the trial he did not make such statement. In the trial he has stated that he had shown the fake currency notes to one Gouranga Saha. It stands as the pointer that the note was also in his possession for some period. PW-2, namely, Manik Sen has stated that prior to the occurrence he did not know the appellant. However, he has categorically stated that “Darogababu told me that currency note recovered from Gokul Das, but did not tell from what part of body the note was recovered.” Such statement unambiguously stands to show that at the time of seizure PW-2 was not at all present. Similarly, PW-3, Imam Hossen has stated in the trial that “I have not seen Gokul Das to deliver 500 currency note to Lafruchai Mog on 7/8 and 14/2/04. O/C Manubazar called me on 14.2.04. O/C told me to sign in a paper. Darogababu told me that he recovered the currency note of 500. Darogababu told me that he got the amount from Gokul Das at Market. I have not seen the currency note in possession of Gokul Das.” In view of this, the seizure of the currency notes from the possession of the appellant has become highly doubtful. 07. From the statement of the Investigating Officer namely Babulal Debnath, PW-12, it is apparent that the currency notes were sent Crl. A. (J) No. 71 of 2009 Page 4 of 5 5 for forensic examination and he had collected the report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory but the said report was not submitted along with the charge-sheet or subsequently in the trial. Holding back of the forensic report has added further opacity to the prosecution case. As such, the notes as allegedly recovered from the appellant cannot be stated to be counterfeited currency notes with certainty on the basis of the oral testimony of PW-12. The other witnesses are the witnesses who gathered in the place of occurrence when the informant called them out. PW-12 had purportedly seized the said fake currency notes by preparing the Exbt.P/2 seizure list. 08. In absence of the cogent evidence as regard to nature of the seized currency notes and of the possession with the appellant, this Court cannot hold that the finding of conviction as returned by the trial Court can be maintained. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant be acquitted from the charge on benefit of doubt. The appellant shall be released from the jail forthwith if his detention is not wanted in any other case. The appeal stands allowed. Send down the LCRs forthwith. JUDGE MB Crl. A. (J) No. 71 of 2009 Page 5 of 5