In Re: Sushil Sarkar

Joymalya Bagchi, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated March 19, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in connection with Sessions Sl. No. 1125 of 2007, declining his prayer for recalling P.W. 1/de facto complainant for further cross-examination. Learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner submits that vital questions were not posed to the de facto complainant with regard to the actual date of demand of dowry, manner of demand of dowry and place and time of factum of torture arising out from such demands.

From the tenor of the questions it appears that evidence has been recorded with regard to demand of dowry and/or allegation of torture arising therefrom. The lack of particularization of such demand, if any, in the factual backdrop of the case may be agitated in course of argument to probabilise the falsehood of the prosecution case but cannot be the reason for praying for recall of the de facto complainant u/s 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and/or irregularity.

I clarify that the observations made by me are for the disposal of this application and shall have no binding effect on the merits of the case, which shall naturally be decided in accordance with law. The revisional application is, accordingly, dismissed.