IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj
C.R.A. 214 of 1996
The West of West Bengal
For the Appellants : Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain, Adv.,
Mr. Pratick Bose, Adv.
Heard On : 1st August, 2018.
Judgement On : 13th September, 2018.
Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.:
The appellant was convicted against the judgment and order
dated 30th day of April, 1996 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore in connection with
Sessions Trial Case No. XXV/Feb./1996 arising out of G.R. Case
No. 421 of 1995. The order of conviction and sentence under
section 326 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for six years and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-,
in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant has already been served out the sentence.
The crux of the allegations against the appellant is to the
effect that the de facto complainant Smt. Kajal Saha got her
daughter Baby Sarkar married to the appellant. After six years of
marriage, she came to her father’s house from her-in-laws house
and just a day before Kali Puja i.e. on18th day of November, 1994
at about 2 P.M. when the daughter of the informant, Baby Sarkar
was returning back from the house of Dr. Basu Ray at Jhargram
Sub-Divisional Hospital compound where she was a maid
servant, this accused person caught hold of her at Tentultala,
Raghunathpur and forcibly threw her on the road. Thereafter, he
put some inflammable article on her head causing the same to
burn. She cried out and local people namely Sanjib and Jayanta
came to her help. They extinguished the fire by pouring water
and she was taken to hospital for treatment. She was admitted
there as indoor patient and released after 5 days of treatment.
The charges were framed against the appellant under section
498A, 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused
person pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses
to establish its case and exhibited a number of documents. The
defence of the accused was one of innocence and false
From the evidence on record, it appears that the appellant
have been categorically identified by the victim P.W. 2 and while
taking admission at the hospital she stated before the doctor that
her husband, the accused herein poured a chemical solution on
her scalp on that fateful day and fire was lighted by a matchstick
and thereafter her husband ran away. P.W. 4 in his evidence
stated that at around noon on 18th November, 1995, he heard a
cry and found a lady with fire on her head and he poured a
bucket of water on her head. Dr. G. Debnath P.W. 3 is the
medical officer, who found burnt injury on the victims scalp and
proved exhibits 2 to 5 as the medical reports of the victim. In his
deposition P.W 3 stated that the above injury could have caused
In the face of the cogent and consistent evidence of the
victim lady P.W. 2 which is corroborated by the aforesaid medical
evidence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the sentence of
the appellant is thus upheld.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed.
The period of detention suffered by the appellant during
investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off against the
substantive sentence imposed upon him under section 428 of the
Code of the Criminal Procedure.
Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the
trial court at once for necessary compliance.
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for,
be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)