SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ajit Kumar Halder vs Unknown on 1 November, 2019

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.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation