Mutum B.K. Singh, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 23-2-2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 24(4)/2004 convicting and sentencing the petitioners to suffer 2 (two) years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) each and in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further three months under Section 436 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned in-charge Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.
3. Facts leading to this revision petition are that one Sri Dilip Kumar Saha lodged a written report on 3-2-2004 at 13.45 hours with the O/C, Churaibari police station stating that on 3-2-2004 at about 3.30 o'clock when he was suddenly woke up by his wife from sleep, his huts were found burning by fire, they could not open and come out from inside the hut as the door was found closed from outside. On his coming out from the hut he saw that his dwelling hut, hotel and another hut were burning by fire. On hearing the alarm raised by them, people from the neighbour came and tried to extinguish the fire and after some time Fire Service also came. All the huts including their wearing apparels and other belongings were completely turned into ash by fire. On 2-2-2004 in the evening the petitioners along with Dhirendra Das quarrelled with his wife and tenant over a previous enmity, they stated that they would make them leave Churaibari before 12.00 O'clock of the next day. He suspecting that the accused persons set his huts on fire.
Pursuant to the said report, a police case being FIR No. 6/2004 of Churaibari police station under Sections 436/307/34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners and Dhirendra Das and after investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet against four accused persons.
4. The learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioners and Dhirendra Das under Section 436 r.w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 307 r.w. Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners and Dhirendra Das, having claimed to be tried, faced the trial. The learned trial Court, after hearing the submission for the both sides and on the basis of the evidences on record, acquitted Sri Dhirendra Das but convicted the petitioners under Section 436 r.w. 34, IPC and also under Section 307, r.w. 34, IPC and sentenced them to suffer four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- each, in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment respectively.
5. On appeal, the learned appellate Court set aside the conviction of the petitioners under Section 307 r.w. 34, IPC, however, upheld the conviction under Section 436 r.w. Section 34, IPC but the sentence has been reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another three months vide judgment dated 23-2-2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 24(4)/ 2004.
6. That, the petitioners, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, preferred this revision petition alleging that both the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court overlooked the material evidences on record, passed the impugned judgment relying upon the inadmissible documents, the examination of the accused persons were done without application of judicial mind and passed the impugned judgment by mis-appreciating the evidences on record. The impugned judgment is illegal and wholly unjust.
7. That, it is settled principle of law that the revisional Court is always slow in interfering with the concurrent finding of facts unless there appears a glaring omission by both the Courts below in taking into consideration the material evidences available on record. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that both the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court overlooked the material evidence i.e. the statement of P.W. No. 4 who, in cross-examination, stated that there was an electric line and it may be hook line, he used to sell liquor and the local people including the accused persons also objected, while passing the impugned judgments. On careful scanning of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it reveals that the learned trial Court considered the statement of P.W. No. 4 and also gave its findings on page No. 6 and page No. 7 of the judgment respectively and that the said findings was not interfered with by the learned appellate Court. Besides, P.W. Nos. 1 & 5 in their cross-examinations by the accused persons (petitioners) categorically stated that there was no electric connection in their huts/ houses. The above statement are corroborated each other. However, the learned Counsel, in support of his submission, cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 3626 : 2004 Cri LJ 3115 (Rarnbriks Singh v. Ambika Yadav). Perused the cited judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court carefully and this Court is of the opinion that the said decision is of no help to the case of the petitioners. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that the overlooking of the material evidence by the learned trial Court amounts to miscarriage of justice and the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is empowered to set aside the order of the learned trial Court. In the instant case, the learned trial Court, as pointed hereinabove, considered the statement of P.W. No. 4. Looking to the evidences on record and findings of the learned Courts below, I find no sufficient force to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
8. That, the petitioners' learned Counsel further submits that there were discrepancies in the statement of P.W. No. 1 and P.W. No. 5 in respect of the location of the hotel which was completely gutted by the said fire incident. According to the learned Counsel, such discrepancies create a doubt to the credibility of the said witnesses. Admittedly. P.W. No. 1 in his cross-examination, stated that the kitchen of his hotel was at a distance of 20/25 cubits from his residential hut. whereas P.W. No. 5 in her cross-examination, deposed that the kitchen was in the northern side of the dwelling hut at a distance of 2 cubits. Such discrepancies are minor in nature which does not at all affect to the merit of the case in view of the admitted fact by both sides that the kitchen was also completely destroyed by fire. Under the above circumstances, where the kitchen was situated bears no material bearing to the merit of the case.
9. That, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners further strenuously urged that both the learned Courts below passed the impugned order relying on the inadmissible documents. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the extract copy of Churaibari P.S. G.D. Entry No. 58 dated 2-2-2004, extract copy of G.D. Entry No. 63 dated 2-2-2004 and copy of P.R No. 33 of 2004 under Section 107/113, Cr. P.C. were exhibited under Exh. 8 series without comparing those documents with the originals and the said documents are inadmissible. The learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court acted upon such inadmissible documents while passing the impugned judgment. I have carefully examined the said documents and found that those documents are the part and parcel of charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. P.W. No. 14, Sri Matilal Choudhury. the then Sub-Inspector of police of Churaibari Police Station stated that he had submitted the extract copy of Churaibari P.S. G.D. Entry Nos. 58 and 63 dated 2-2-2004 and copy of P.R. No. 33 of 2004 under Section 107/113, Cr. P.C. along with the charge-sheet and also exhibited as Exh. 8 series. When the said documents were exhibited no objection was raised from the side of the accused persons and the existence of the said documents was not denied at all. Since the said documents were marked without any objection and such objection was also not taken before the learned appellate Court, the petitioners cannot raise about the inadmissibility of the aid documents at the stage : [1972]2SCR646 . In R. V.F. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswasaraswami and V.P. Temple : AIR2003SC4548 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the objection as to admissibility of secondary evidence relating to document can be raised even after the document has been marked as an exhibit or even in appeal or revision if the document sought to be proved is itself inadmissible. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that if the objection is directed not against the admissibility of the document but against the mode of proof thereof on the ground of irregularity or insufficiency etc. such objection is not entertainable if the document has been exhibited without any objection from the other side. It appears that the objection of the petitioners is only as to the mode of proof of the said documents but not to the admissibility of the said documents. In view of the above discussions, I am not inclined to accept the above point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
10. That, the petitioners learned Counsel further contended that the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. were not done in accordance with law or in other words the learned trial Court examined the accused persons without application of judicial mind. On this point, the learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the question No. 2 put to the accused persons. Admittedly, the examination of an accused person under Section 313(1), Cr. P.C. is not an empty formality, every piece of incriminating evidence against the accused person is to be brought to the notice of the accused for his explanation. In the present case, it appears that the learned trial Court put all the incriminating evidence available on record against the accused persons for their explanations. The only point raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the learned trial Court without application of mind casually put the name of Nilu Das in the second line of question No. 2 while examining the other accused persons under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. and thus, the examinations of the accused persons, namely, Dulu Das and Bappa Das were not done in accordance with law. This point is not at all convincing to this Court because all the accused persons were tried jointly and all the witnesses gave their statement against the accused persons and thus, the same set of Incriminating evidences were put to them for their explanations.
11. That, the last point raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners were convicted on circumstantial evidences but the prosecution could not establish the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused persons. According to the learned Counsel, the statement of P.W. Nos. 1, 5, 8, 9 and 15 are contradictory to each other, they are relatives and tenant, their statement is not supported by any other independent witness and therefore, their statement are unreliable. The factum of threatening the complainant to leave Churalbari in the evening of 2-2-2004 by the accused persons was not proved.
12. That, on perusal of the statement of the said witnesses and the documents under Exh. 8 series and the ejahar marked Exh. P/1, it reveals that on 2-2-2004 the accused persons went to the shop of the informant and demanded subscription. On objection being raised by the P.W. Nos. 5 and 15, they were assaulted by the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused persons also threatened to evict the informant from the area by setting the houses on fire. The above fact is also reflected in the ejahar itself. P.W. No. 1, the informant, in his cross-examination categorically stated that the accused Nilu Das was demanding subscription illegally for the last six months before the incident and on one occasion he also threatened him that he should pay tax otherwise he would not be allowed to carry his business. He further deposed that he did not inform about the previous incident to the police but he had informed about the incident occurred in the evening of 2-2-2004 to the police. P.W. No. 5 deposed that in the evening of 2-2-2004 the accused persons came to the hotel and demanded tax stating that without payment of tax she would not be allowed to carry the business. On objection being raised, she was assaulted by them and one Papu Acharjee was also assaulted. They further threatened that they would set their house on fire. The above fact is supported by the statement of P.W. Nos. 8, 9 and 15. P.W. No. 15 Papu Acharjee, the tenant of the informant, categorically deposed that on 2-2-2004 in the evening the accused Nilu Das came to the shop of Dilip Saha, the informant and demanded tax. The wife of the informant came to the spot and raised objection. On hearing the alarm, he went to the spot and also raised objection. At that time the accused persons assaulted the wife of the informant and himself. Thereafter, they went to the police station and reported the matter. On the basis of the said report P.W. No. 13 conducted an enquiry and the said incident was entered in G.D. Entry Nos. 56 and 63 respectively. P.W. No. 13 submitted P.R. under Section 107/113, Cr. P.C. to the SDJM, Dharmanagar, North Tripura. The fire incident took place at about 3.00 o'clock of 3-2-2004.
12.1 That, the statement of the above witnesses were not shattered at all. The chain of events which has emerged from the evidences that the accused Nilu Das was forcibly collecting tax since before the date of occurrence, on 2-2-2004 in the evening the wife of the informant and the P.W. No. 15 were assaulted by the accused persons when they objected to the demand of tax by the accused persons, the matter was brought to the notice of the concerned police station, the accused persons in the evening of the same day further threatened to evict the informant before 12 noon of the next day from Churaibari and the fire accident took place in the early morning at about 3/3.30 of 3-2-2004, lead nearly to the conclusion that there cannot be any other hypothesis except to the guilt of the accused persons for the said fire incident though there was no eye-witness of the said fire incident. It appears that the chain of circumstantial evidences leading to the guilt of the accused persons were so well proved by cogent, succinct and reliable evidences by the prosecution. The above circumstantial evidences unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused persons. The learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court rightly convicted the accused persons on strong circumstantial evidence.
13. That, the accused persons, however, made an attempt unsuccessfully to establish that the fire incident might have taken place because of loose hook line electric connection. However, in view of the statement of P.W. Nos. 1 & 5 given in their cross-examinations, the above theory cannot be accepted.
14. Having regard to the above discussions and observations, this Court is of the considered view that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and conviction passed by the learned appellate Court. Consequently, this Revision petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Revision petition is dismissed. The accused-petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the sentence. No costs.