AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tirthankar Ghosh, J
The revisional application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15th March, 2006 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in connection with ST Case No. 2(1)/2001, wherein the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused persons from the charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act.
The prosecution case in brief is that on 22nd July, 1999 when the complainant Mojaffar Hossain Molla along with Nousad Ali Molla, Nurul Islam Molla and Noor Md. Molla were proceeding towards their village Durgapur from Dewantala, Durgapur More with their bicycle at about 7:50 hours the accused persons, who assembled at the side of the road, started hurling bombs towards them, as a result of which Nousad Ali Molla and his son Noor Md. Molla sustained some injuries and they fell down from the bicycle. The accused persons thereafter slit the throat of Nousad Ali Molla by sharp cutting weapon. The informant recognized the accused persons when the bombs exploded. It is alleged that Nurul Islam Molla also sustained injuries and on hearing hue and cry many persons assembled there and as a result the accused persons fled away.
The aforesaid facts were reduced in the form of a written complaint and addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Diamond Harbour Police Station, pursuant to which Diamond Harbor Police Station Case No. 211 dated 23rd July, 1999 was registered for investigation against the accused persons under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Section 9 of the Indian Explosives Act.
On completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer (IO) of the case submitted chargesheet under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 9 of the Indian Explosives Act against the accused persons and the case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions.
The Ld. Trial Court on consideration of the materials on record and after hearing submissions of the Ld. Public Prosecutor as well as the Ld. Advocate for the defence was pleased to frame charge under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 9 of the Indian Explosives Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 8 witnesses being PW1, Mujaffar Hossain Molla - complainant; PW2, Nurul Islam Molla - son of the victim, Nousad Ali Molla; PW3, Mohamudul Haque - resident of Village Nurpur; PW4, Abu Haraiya Mondal - bus conductor who was present at the cloth shop; PW5, Omed Ali Molla - resident of Durgapur; PW6, Dr. Tapas Kanti Roy - post mortem doctor; PW7, Ranjit Kumar Mondal - SI of Police who filled up formal FIR and PW8, Bipad Bhanjan Mondal - SI of Police and the Investigation Officer (IO). The defence did not examine any witness. The plea of the defence was one of false implication and they being framed because of grudge of the complainant.
The Ld. Trial Court on appreciation of the material evidence relied upon by the prosecution which included the oral deposition of the 8 witnesses and the documents being written complaint (Ext.1), signature of complainant (Ext.1/1), signature of PW2 in the seizure list (Ext.2), signature of Noor in the seizure list (Ext.2/1), post mortem report (Ext.3), endorsement of SI in written complaint (Ext.3/1), formal FIR (Ext.4), inquest report (Ext.5), chalan (Ext.6) and sketch map (Ext.7), expressed his ambiguity regarding involvement of the accused persons in connection with the instant case.
The Ld. Trial Court first took into account the contention of the defence which surfaced out during the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the witnesses, according to the Ld. Court, PW3 for the first time in Court stated that Nurul Islam sustained injuries on his person. None of the name of the assailants were narrated when the inquest report was prepared and inspite of that the inquest report was signed by PW1, PW3 and PW5.
The Ld. Trial Court also raised suspicion regarding the contradictions in respect of the place where the complaint was prepared, which appeared in evidence of PW1 and PW8, along with the delay of about 7 days which occurred due to lapse of the Investigating Agency in sending the same to the Ld. ACJM. Further, the Court expressed its agony in respect of the investigation being not carried out with regard to the blood stained wearing apparels, blood stained earth, jute string along with non production of injury report of victim Nurul Islam, which according to the Ld. Court created dent in the prosecution case, as Nurul Islam happened to be an eye-witness of the incident and inspite of that the Investigating Officer did not endeavor to collect the injury reports nor did the IO examine any of the persons in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, as there were many shops and houses near the place of occurrence and according to the prosecution case about 100/150 persons gathered at the time of incident. The Ld. Court thereafter took into account that the previous enmity amongst the complainant and his relatives and the accused persons cannot be ruled out as there was a scope of politically rivalry, because of the complainant and the accused persons belonging to different political parties. The Ld. Court disbelieved the version of PW1 as deposed by him that identification of the accused persons were done in the light of the bombs while they exploded. The Court therefore proceeded to disbelieve the PW1 and PW2 who were the main prosecution witnesses and as such arrived at his findings of acquittal so far as the accused persons are concerned.
I have perused the manner in which the Ld. Trial Court has scanned the evidence of each of the witnesses including the medical evidence as also the contradictions being pointed out in the process of arriving at his conclusion.
Having due regard to the settled principle of law, that an interference in revision against an order of acquittal can only be made, if there is glaring defect of procedure or the Court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account such evidence which was inadmissible or had overlooked some evidence and that there must be manifest illegality in the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court granting acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
I have carefully gone through the judgment delivered by the Ld. Trial Court which included proper analysis of the evidence of all the witnesses, logical reasons and a conclusion based on factual foundation which do not go against the settled principles of law in respect of examining the veracity of the witnesses as also the totality of the circumstances in the background of the facts of the case. It would not be out of place to state that in Antar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1979 (1) SCC 79, it has been held that where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible and the Ld. 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.
I have taken into consideration the manner in which the Ld. Trial Court arrived at its conclusion, the settled principles of law relating to revision against an order of acquital and the manner in which the Ld. Trial Court by way of cogent and logical reasons reached at its findings of acquittal. I do not find any illegality in the order so passed by the Ld. Trial Court and as such the judgment and order dated 15th March, 2006 passed in ST Case No. 2(1)/2001 by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, do not call for interference by this Court.
CRR 1187 of 2006 is accordingly dismissed.
The Department is directed to communicate this order and the Lower Court Records be sent down to the Court below.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.