Tripura High Court: T. Amarnath Goud, J. allowed a petition giving an opportunity to the petitioner and complete the recall and re-examination of the witnesses as prayed for.
A written ejahar to the effect that on 03-11-2013 was filed wherein accused-Kaushik Das came to his house and told him that he will visit Natunbazar to see the Kali Puja along with the son of the informant, Prasenjit Saha. Despite the objection of the informant, accused Kaushik Das took his son Prasenjit to Natunbazar to see the Kali Puja. On 04-11-2013, evening at around 4 P.M., both of them informed that they will not return to Amarpur. On 05-11-13 morning at around 8.30 A.M., when the informant called his son, he found his mobile to be switched off and the maternal uncle of Kaushik Das, namely, Sri Bikash Shil (Bhutta) called in the mobile of the elder son of the informant and informed that both his son and Kaushik Das are untraceable since yesterday night. Informant and his wife visited Nautunbazar and came to know that Kaushik Das, Shankar Banik, Sajar Sarkar, and 4/5 others conjointly kidnapped his son and kept him in their custody under Section 365/34 IPC. Prasenjit Saha and Kaushik Das spent their night in the house of the one Abinash Shil near Juva Samaj Club. As the informant visited the house of Abhinash Shil, he could see Kaushik Das but did not find his son.
The case was investigated by CID and Natunbazar P.S. The Court directed the trial Court to frame charge against the present petitioner under Section 202 of IPC or other appropriate charging provision.
The prayer of P.P. was allowed and additional charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the present petitioner on 26-07-2019.
The Court was of the view that in criminal cases opportunity to prove that the accused is not guilty has to be exercised more in favour of the accused person since his rights conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand on a better footing compared to the procedure contemplated under Section 311 of CrPC, which is the subject matter of the present petition. Thus, it is needless to observe that as and when an occasion arises before the Court to exercise the discretion, it should always go in favour of the accused person.
The Court has directed the Court below to give an opportunity to the petitioner and complete the recall and re-examination of the witnesses.
Criminal Petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 21-01-2022 which dismissed the petition was set aside.[Dr. Kaushik Das v. State of Tripura, 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 66, decided on 04-02-2022]
Mr S. Kar Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate. Mr J. Das, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner
Mr R. Datta, P.P. Mr S. Debnath, Addl. P.P., counsel for the respondents
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.