SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

CRR/1573/2006 on 26 August, 2019

1

39 26.08.2019

C.R.R. 1573 of 2006
SB Ct. No. 34
In Re : Santi Dome

None appears for the petitioner.

No accommodation is sought for.

The revisional application has been preferred against the judgment and

order dated 27.01.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

F.T.C. Durgapur, Burdwan, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2005 (Sessions Trial

No. 23 of 2005) under Sectionsections 498A/Section302/Section34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case in brief is that the daughter of the complainant

was married to Jiten Dome in the year 1993 and dispute arose between them.

On one occasion it has been alleged that the husband of the victim tried to

throw her in a well and she somehow rescued herself and took shelter in her

parental home. After four months her husband after giving assurance to the

local committee took back the victim namely Sunita at his house. On

31.12.1997 at about 8 PM the complainant received information from his

younger daughter that his elder daughter Sunita was lying in a burnt condition

at her in-law’s house, she was shifted to Bidhannagar Hospital in a precarious

condition. The complainant alleged that having failed to bear the torture

inflicted by her husband, mother-in-law and one Pramila Dome, sister-in-law,

her daughter Sunita tried to take away from her life.

On the basis of the aforesaid compliant Pandabeswar P.S. registered a

case under Sectionsections 498A/Section34 of the Indian Penal Code being Pandabeswar

P.S. Case No. 1/98 dated 01.01.1998 and the investigation of the case was

entrusted to S.I. Tapas Kumar Paul.

On completion of investigation the investigating agency submitted

charge sheet against the accused Jiten Dome and Pramila Dome being

offences punishable under Sectionsections 498A/Section302/Section34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case was thereafter committed to the court of sessions and finally the

learned trial court after compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure was pleased to fix date for consideration of

charge. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments advanced by both
2

the parties was pleased to prima facie hold that charges under Sectionsections

498A/Section302/Section34 of the Indian Penal Code have been made out by the

prosecution and accordingly framed charges. The charge was thereafter read

over to the accused person to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

The prosecution in order to establish its case relied upon thirteen

witnesses and relied upon nine documents which were marked as exhibits.

On conclusion of prosecution witness the learned trial court was pleased to fix

date for examination of the accused persons under Sectionsection 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and thereafter invited the defence to rely upon wintesses /

documents in support of its case. However, the defence examined none and

accordingly the learned Court fixed date for final arguments of the case. The

learned trial court after hearing the argument advanced by both the parties

was pleased to deliver a judgement and order of acquittal in favour of the

accused persons.

It is reflected from the judgement that the learned trial court has

scrutinized the evidence and analysed the same and thereafter come to the

conclusion that prosecution in spite of its best efforts could not prove the case

beyond reasonable doubt and there were circumstances which created

reasonable suspicion in the mind of the Court regarding the outcome of the

investigation.

I have found that the reasons so assigned by the learned trial court are

based on the factual foundation of the case and there is nothing contrary

which the learned trial court has recorded while appreciating the evidence

from those deposed by the prosecution witnesses in Court.

In view of the settled principle of law that the High Court while

adjudicating a revision against an order of acquittal is to see, whether there is

a glaring defect of the procedure and a manifest error on the face of the

records of the case which would cause a grave miscarriage of justice. It is

also further settled that if two views are possible one pointing towards guilt of

the accused and other towards acquittal and the learned Court has acquitted
3

the accused persons, in that case it would not be proper for the High Court to

reverse such a judgement only on the issue whether re-appreciation of the

evidence may have an alternative view of conviction or not.

In view of the settled principles of law as also the reasons assigned by

the learned trial Court while arriving at its conclusion, I do not find any glaring

illegality which would compel this Court to interfere with the impugned

judgement and order of acquittal passed in connection with Sessions Case

No. 4 of 2005 (Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2005).

Accordingly, C.R.R. 1573 of 2006 is dismissed.

Lower court records be sent down to the learned court below forthwith.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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