SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Debananda Panigrahi vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 January, 2020


Form No.J(1)

Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta

CRR 1693 of 2017

Debananda Panigrahi

The State of West Bengal Ors.

For the petitioner: Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharya
Mr. P. Biswas

For the State : Mr. Swapan Banerjee
Mr. Suman De

Heard on : 17.01.2020

Judgment on : 17.01.2020

Jay Sengupta, J:

This is an application challenging the order dated 13th February, 2017,

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24

Parganas, arising out of GR Case No.3049 of 2016.

Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

Despite service, no one appears on behalf of the private opposite parties.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows.

The petitioner is the de facto complainant of the case and is the brother of the

victim/deceased. In 2016, the petitioner lodged a First Information Report

against the private opposite parties alleging that they had set her sister on fire

and she was fighting with death in a hospital. The FIR was registered under

sections 307, 326, 498A of Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and

later on, section 302 of the Penal Code was added after the victim passed away.

Investigation done in this case was motivated as would be evident from the fact

that even though the death took place after about fifteen years of marriage, the

Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet under section 304B instead of under

section 302 of the Penal Code. Several relevant witnesses were not examined

including the victim’s parents. The victim’s father, Rabindra Nath Panigrahi, was

the one to whom the victim had made an important phone call about torture

inflicted by the accused sometime before the incident. Even the mother of the

victim, Sachirani Panigrahi and her two cousin sisters, Tapashi Choudhuri and

Tanushree Misra (nee Panigrahi), to whom the victim had narrated about her

sufferings in the matrimonial home were not cited as witnesses. Although the

charge sheet was submitted under lesser sections, during the pendency of the

revision, the learned trial court was pleased to frame charges under sections 302,

304B, 307,326, 498A read with section 34 of the Penal Code and Sections 3 and

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is true that the learned trial court was kind

enough to properly assess the materials on record and frame a charge under

section 302 of the Penal Code. However, the trial of the case would not be

complete without the examination of relevant witnesses like the parents and the

two cousin sisters of the victim/deceased. To that effect further investigation is

required to be done. As the stay granted in this revision had lapsed, the learned

trial court proceeded with the matter and the charges were framed. A schedule

has been fixed for examination of the witnesses.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as follows. It will

indeed be in the interest of justice that the parents and other relevant witnesses

be examined to find out the real truth. However, this can also be done by calling

them as witnesses during trial. Several other materials have been collected,

which make out a prima facie case against the accused for which charges have

already been framed against them.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf

of the parties and have perused the revision petition.

The charge sheet and the accompanying documents clearly make out a

case against the accused for which the charges have already been framed by the

learned trial court.

Deleting the charge under section 302 and instead putting section 304B of

the Penal Code as the only charge in this respect is a serious irregularity

committed by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

But, a direction for further investigation at this stage would only further

delay the proceeding.

The purpose of justice will be served if such relevant witnesses like the

parents of the victim and her two cousin sisters are permitted to be examined as

witnesses during trial.


In the interest of justice, I dispose of this revisional application by directing

that the learned trial court shall summon and examine the relevant witnesses

like the parents and the two cousin sisters of the victim during trial. A learned

Advocate engaged by the de facto complainant may be permitted to assist the

learned Public Prosecutor during trial. The learned trial court is also requested to

conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to

the parties upon usual undertakings.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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