1
9 01.11.2019
A.B. Ct.No.34
C.R.R. 4118A of 2006
In the matter of:- Ajit Kumar Halder
It is reflected from the records of the case that on 22.7.2019
none appeared on behalf of the petitioner as such the revisional
application was fixed under the heading “for order” for final disposal
on 01.8.2019. Since 01.8.2019 none appeared inspite of repeated
calls and the matter has been running in the list without effectively
being adjudicated.
So far as the merits of the revisional application is concerned
it is found that the petitioner is aggrieved by a judgement and order
of acquittal dated 10.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – 1, Burdwan in S.C. No. 176 of
2000 arising out of Memari Police Station Case no. 177 of 1997
dated 17.10.1997 under Sectionsections 498A/Section306 of the Indian Penal
Code.
The prosecution case was initiated on the basis of a complaint
filed by one Ajit Kumar Halder with the Officer-in-charge Memary
Police Station. According to him his youngest daughter Tanima
Mukherjee nee Halder was married to the accused Gautam
Mukherjee on or about 23.7.1996 as per Hindu rites and customs.
2
At the time of marriage the informant spent considerable amount of
money and gave sufficient articles in the form of dowry. The further
allegation of the informant is that his daughter was subjected to
immense physical and mental torture by the accused on different
domestic issues. Unable to bear such torture the informant’s
daughter on 03.10.1997 at about 2 A.M. committed suicide by
pouring kerosene on her person.
On the basis of the aforesaid complaint the case was
investigated and finally charge sheet was filed against the husband,
Gautam Mukherjee and four others. After due compliance of the
provisions of law the case was committed to the Court of Sessions
and subsequently charge was framed on or about 07.4.2003. It is
pertinent to state that although the case was initiated under
Sectionsections 498A/Section304B of the Indian Penal Code yet the learned Trial
Court on perusal of the materials on record was pleased to frame
charge under Sectionsections 498A/Section306 of the Indian Penal Code. The
charge was read over to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 14
witnesses and number of documents. The defence did not produce
any witness, however, as it is apparent from the cross-examination,
the plea of defence was one of innocence.
3
I have taken into account the oral deposition of the witnesses
as also the medical evidence and the manner in which the same has
been dealt with by the learned Trial Court while arriving at its
conclusion. The reasons so assigned by the learned Trial Court for
acquitting the accused persons are that there is no evidence that the
accused persons abated the victim in commission of suicide or there
were any instigation from their side which could compel the victim
to take such a drastic step. The learned Trial Court further
observed that there was no evidence of any act or conduct on the
part of the accused persons to establish direct nexus in close
proximity of the time during which the victim committed suicide.
The further observation of the learned Trial Court is that the
communications so narrated by the witnesses in respect of the
victim with regard to inflicting torture upon her is concerned they
have no proximate relation with the cause of her death.
This Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction in case of
an order of acquittal is bound by the settled principles of law as
pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Firstly, there must be a
manifest illegality in the judgement of the learned Trial Court in an
order of acquittal which would call for an interference of this Court
or there may be an error of law or certain admissible evidence has
been ignored which should have been taken into consideration while
arriving at its conclusion. In this case I do not find any material
4
from which it can be said that there has been a manifest illegality
which would require the interference of this Court. The other issues
which has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court is that while
exercising revisional jurisdiction this Court cannot re-appraise the
evidence of the witnesses with the object of simply arriving at an
alternative finding. It is imperative that there must be a gross
miscarriage of justice by the learned Trial Court while arriving at its
conclusion of acquittal for the High Court to interfere, there cannot
be any interference in respect of cases where there can be simply an
alternative view.
Having due regard to the reasons so assigned by the Trial
Court and the manner in which the evidence has been appreciated I
do not find any illegality in the impugned judgement and order of
acquittal so passed by the learned Trial Court.
Accordingly, CRR 4118A of 2006 is dismissed.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)