1
15 11.11.2019
A.B. Ct.No.34
C.R.R. 1269 of 2006
In the matter of:- Gautam Dholey
Mr. Sujan Chatterjee
Mr. Sanat Kumar Das
………… for the petitioner
The revisional application has been preferred against the judgement
and order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, First Court, Hooghly in S.T. Case No. 62 of 2003 (S.C. Case No. 167
of 1999) wherein the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused
person from charges under Sectionsection 498A/Section306 of the Indian Penal Code. I
find from the judgement delivered by the learned Trial Court that there has
been proper assessment of the evidence. In fact the learned Trial Court has
considered and scrutinized each of the evidence appearing in favour of the
prosecution which is as follows:
“P.W. 1 has stated that the accused persons started perpetrating
physical and mental torture on his elder sister. P.W. 4 has stated that she
would be assaulted and tortured. P.W. 5 has also made a similar statement.
P.W. 6 stated that Jaya reported her the ill-behaviour of the members of her
in-law’s family towards her. P.W. 7 has also stated that the accused
persons would misbehave with Jaya. Evidence of P.W. 8 is that behaviour of
Jaya’s husband, Boudi, Bhasur and other members was bad towards Jaya.
Misbehaviour does not come within the fold of 498A SectionI.P.C. to establish the
charge of cruelty u/s 498A SectionI.P.C. consequences of cruelty which are likely to
drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be
established. The evidence on record falls much short of proving the charge of
Sectionsection 498A I.P.C.”
The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing such evidence considered
the facts of the case in the background of the law relating to Sectionsection 498A
of the Indian Penal Code and so far as abetment is concerned in respect of
the provisions of Sectionsection 306 of the Indian Penal Code I have taken account
the judgement so delivered by the learned Trial Court as also the settled
2
principles of law in case of revision against an order of acquittal passed by
the learned Trial Court.
This Court is empowered to interfere with an order of acquittal while
exercising its revisional jurisdiction only in cases where there has been
grounds for miscarriage of justice or there has been manifest illegality in
the procedure adopted by the learned Trial Court. It has further been
settled that if there are two view possible one in favour of acquittal of the
accused and the other in respect of his conviction then it would not be
proper for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and hold an
alternative view by concluding that if it would have been a Trial Court then
it would have convicted the accused.
Having due regard to the manner of appreciation of evidence,
scrutiny of the materials placed before the Trial Court as also the
established principles of law, I do not find that this is a fit case for
interference
Accordingly, CRR 1269 of 2006 is dismissed.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)