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
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
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
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
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
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.)