"Happened In A Spur Of The Moment, No Intention To Kill": Tripura High Court Reduces Sentence For Attempt To Murder

The judgment was passed by a division bench of Justice Amarnath Goud and Justice Arindam Lodh:

"Having considered thus, we come to this conclusion that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant based on material evidence produced by the prosecution and there is no infirmity in the impugned findings regarding conviction. From a perusal of the record and considering the facts in its entirety, it seems that the offence have occurred at the spur of the moment; the appellant had no intention or motive to kill the victim; the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent in his past life; he is not required in any other criminal case except the one in question. Accordingly, it is considered to be just and proper to alter/modify the sentence of the appellant from 10 years to that of 7 (seven) years."

This appeal arose out of the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 447 (criminal trespass), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) and 307 (attempt to murder) of IPC.

The case of the prosecution was that the appellant entered the house of the complainant and started shouting and abusing him when Goutam Adhikari, the victim, arrived at the scene to inquire what was happening. This apparently infuriated the appellant who is said to have attacked Adhikari with a dagger, resulting in grievous bleeding injury on his abdomen. It was alleged that the accused was so furious that he repeatedly struck the Adhikari.

In appeal, Appellant's counsel conceded that there was a scuffle between the accused-appellant. However, he argued that the appellant was falsely implicated in the instant case due to animosity in connection with a property dispute. He further argued that if there was an attack, as alleged, the same occurred in the heat of the moment and there was no intention on the part of the Appellant to cause any such injury to the victim.

The High Court, on scanning all the material on record, was of the view that since there was some dispute between the accused and the family of the victim, an altercation took place between the accused and the victim in regard to the land dispute and the accused-appellant on the heat of anger had committed such offence punishable, which was not at all intentional. It said, "appellant had no motive to kill or cause any grievous injury to the victim."

Thus, though the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence.

Case Title : Sri Chandan Adhikari v The State of Tripura

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 21 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment