IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
C.R.R. 1814 of 2006
Sampa Rani Sen
The State of West Bengal Ors.
For the Petitioner : None appears
For the State : None appears,
Heard on : 25.07.2019
Judgment on : 14.08.2019
Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :-
The revisional application has been preferred against the judgement and
order dated 13.2.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd
Court, Burdwan in Sessions Case No.113 of 2005 wherein the learned Trial Court
was pleased to acquit the accused persons from the charges under Sectionsection 498A/
Section307/Section34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case in short is that the de-facto complainant, Sampa Sen
was married to the accused Sisir Sen according to Hindu Rites and Customs and
in the said marriage the father of the de-facto complainant gave a sum of
Rs.60,000/- in cash, 5 tollahs of gold ornaments, utensils and other articles,
although the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,00/- and 10
tollahs of gold ornaments. After marriage the de-facto complainant began to lead
conjugal life with the accused Sisir Sen but the accused persons namely Sisir
Sen and his brothers Asit Sen and Amit Sen, his mother Tulsi Sen and his sisters
Mamta Sen and Sabita Sen continued demanding rest of the cash money and
gold ornaments. De-facto complainant and his family could not satisfy such
demand and as a consequence the accused persons began to torture upon the
de-facto complainant in various ways. On 4.9.2003 the mother-in-law and
sisters-in-law of the de-facto complainant dragged her away in a room and the
husband and his two brothers brought a straw cutting banti in order to murder
her. Accused Sisir Sen gave blow on the head of the de-facto complainant with
the banti, causing fracture and bleeding injury. Thereafter hearing alarm the
villagers came and rescued the de-facto complainant and shifted her to Burdwan
Medical College and Hospital for treatment. She was under treatment for 5 days
and was bed ridden for one month.
However police did not start any case and as such the de-facto
complainant filed a petition of complaint under section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure when the learned Magistrate was pleased to send the same
for investigation to the local police station treating the same as F.I.R.
On the basis of the direction passed in the application under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of the de-facto
complainant against the accused persons, the police authorities started
investigation under Sections 498A/Section406/Section307/Section34 of the Indian Penal Code and
subsequently Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was added.
On completion of Investigation the police authorities submitted charge-
sheet against all the six accused persons under Sections 498A/Section406/Section307/Section34/Section326
of the Indian Penal Code
The case was thereafter committed to the court of sessions and the learned
Trial Court framed charges under Sections 498A/ Section307/Section34 of the Indian Penal
Code and the charges were thereafter read over to the accused persons who
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The learned Trial Court on conclusion of evidence of the prosecution
witnesses examined the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and opted the accused persons for adducing defence
witnesses, which the accused persons did not avail and so the learned Trial
Court fixed date for final arguments of the case. The learned Magistrate after
hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties was pleased to
acquit the accused persons from the charges under Sections 498A/Section307/Section34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution in order to prove its case examined eight witnesses namely
Sampa Sen de-facto complainant (PW-1), Naba Kumar Dawn maternal uncle of
PW-1 (PW-2), Mrityunjoy Konar the father of PW-1(PW-3), Rajesh Sen son of PW-
1(PW-4), Swarnalata Konar the mother of PW-1 (PW-5), Tarak Nath Karati (PW-6),
Umapada Mukherjee (PW-7) and Dr. Narendra Nath Mukherjee (PW-8).
According to the learned Trial Court the PW-1, de-facto complainant
improved her evidence and embellished the same before the Court in respect of
her previous statement before the investigating agency. The Trial Court
categorically observed that she did not state to investigating officer that she was
not provided with food and she had stated it first time in Court. The learned
Court also observed that the deposition of the PW-1 in Court, that her husband
and his two brothers caught hold of her two hands and the husband attempted
to cut her neck when her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law instigated her
husband was also embellished as the same was deposed first time in the Court.
The evidence of PW-1 to the extent that her maternal uncle and maternal
grandmother stayed at her matrimonial home and they were present on the very
night on the alleged date of incident was also stated for the first time before the
Court, but the said evidence has not been stated in the FIR. In the FIR, PW-1
stated that the villagers have taken her to hospital, while in her deposition before
the Court she said that her parents took her to hospital. PW-3 deposed in Court
on the basis of what he has heard from the PW-1 and PW-2 and PW-4 who is a
child witness in his cross-examination admitted that he was tutored as to what
was to be deposed in this case before the Court. So far as the evidence of the
doctor PW-8 is concerned the learned Court categorically observed that there is
no note over the injury report and it was only written “injury forehead repaired
outside and bandage”. Thus evidence goes against the prosecution, so far as the
injury of the victim as described by her is concerned. The Trial Court also took
into account that although the witnesses have said that the villagers informed
the police station regarding the incident but no general diary has been produced
before the Court to substantiate such contention. The learned Trial Court was
thus of the opinion that in this case because of the discrepancy which appeared
in the evidence amongst the prosecution witnesses themselves it was required by
the investigating officer to rely upon some independent witnesses, which the
prosecution did not rely and as such it was not possible for the Court to come to
a conclusion which unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused persons. The
learned Trial Court after scrutinising the evidence and on the basis of the factual
foundation arrived at his finding thereby acquitting the accused persons.
I have gone through the judgement delivered by the learned Court below
and on perusal of the same I find that the learned Trial Court has made factual
appreciation of each of the prosecution witnesses and thereafter arrived at his
finding. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are properly
substantiated in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that presumption of
innocence of the accused persons are further reinforced by their acquittal by
the Trial Court and the view of the Trial Judge as to the credibility of the
witnesses must be given proper weight and consideration, there must be
compelling and substantial reason for the Higher Court to come to a
conclusion different from that of a Trial Judge. Further In Antar Singh Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 1979 SC 1188 it has been held that where two
views of the evidence are reasonably possible, and the Trial Court has opted for
one favouring acquittal, the High Court should not disturb the same merely on
the ground that, if it were in the position of the Trial Court, it would have
taken the alternative view and convicted the accused accordingly.
In view of the settled principal of law and the reasons assigned by the
learned Trial Court while arriving at his conclusion, I do not intend to interfere
with the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Burdwan.
In the result, the revisional application being CRR No.1814 of 2006 is
The lower Court records be sent down immediately to the Court below.
The Department is directed to communicate the order to the Court
Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgement, if applied for, be supplied
to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh. J)