AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.—1. The instant revision petition is filed by the victim appellant and the defacto-complainant appellant against the judgment and order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 17(2) of 2011 wherein the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order of acquittal dated 03.02.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Udaipur, South Tripura in case No. G.R. 224 of 2009.
Heard Mr. KN Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Ratan Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 20.03.2009, at about 4.30 pm, 3 labourers of the complainant petitioner were digging earth from the land of the complainant. At that time the accused persons namely Anil Sarkar, Nikhil Sarkar, Smt. Moushami Sarkar and Smt. Manju Sarkar, restrained the labourers of the complainant and, since the complainant was absent from his house, the wife of the complainant asked the accused persons to know the reasons for their resistance, to which the accused persons started assaulting the wife of the complainant and the labourers by fist and blows and also used filthy languages. The wife of the complainant raised alarm hearing which the neighbouring people came at the spot and rescued them.
By way of stating the aforesaid facts, the complainant petitioner lodged a complaint on 24.03.2009 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur, which was forwarded to the Officer-in-charge, RK Pur police station under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C for investigation and after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against all the four accused persons under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the IPC.
Upon receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur, transferred the case to the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Udaipur, South Tripura, for disposal according to law.
Upon receipt of the case record, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Udaipur, South Tripura examined all the accused persons under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation was explained to the accused persons to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
To substantiate the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 6(six) witnesses and after closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and the answers given by them were recorded.
At the conclusion of the trial and after hearing on both sides, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Udaipur, South Tripura, acquitted all the four accused persons from the charge framed against them under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the IPC and set them at liberty.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 03.02.2011, passed by the learned trial Court, the victim Smt. Sasti Biswas and the defacto-complainant Sri Suresh Biswas have preferred an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused persons, who are the respondents herein.
During argument before the learned trial Court, it was contended that the learned trial Court was not justified in not believing Smt. Sasti Biswas, the victim and the statement of PW-5 (Sri Suresh Biswas) the husband of the victim, corroborating the statement of the victim.
An argument was advanced by the accused persons that in the complaint, the complainant named Tarun Debnath, Shibu Mandal and Ratan Sarkar, as witnesses and except Tarun Debnath other named witnesses were not examined. It is also contended that non-examination of the witnesses, named in the complaint, would create a doubt regarding the prosecution case.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, argued before the learned appellate Court that the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr. KN Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed wrong by acquitting the accused persons from the charge leveled against them. He further submits that mere non-examination of the listed witnesses itself would not be a ground for doubting the prosecution case.
Mr. Ratan Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents while supporting the judgment of the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court submits that there is no corroboration from any witnesses that PW-2, the victim was assaulted by any of the accused persons, rather 2(two) important episodes have transpired from the prosecution case that over this issue a criminal case was registered against one Bapan Sarkar without implicating the present accused-respondents and that, there was exchange of filthy language between the accused respondents, Moushami and Manju in one side and the alleged victim, Sasti, in other side. It is also contended that the complaint was lodged after four days without any explanation although the alleged incident was occurred on 20.03.2009. Thus, on that ground alone it would be proper to upheld the judgment of the learned trial Court and the appellate Court.
On the other hand, Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent clearly submits that when before the appellate Court learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt then there is nothing for him to submit against the accused persons.
This Court has gone through the evidence of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5, who are the vital witnesses, which has been reproduced herein below:
"PW-1 (Sri Tarun Debnath) states that, "I know Sasti Biswas and Suresh Biswas. Suresh and Sasti Biswas are husband and wife. On 20.3.2009 at about 4.30 pm, after our work as mason near the house of Suresh Biswas and Nikhil Sarkar and others we were asked by Smt. Sasti Biswas, the wife of Suresh Biswas to fetch some soil from a place she pointed us to her compound. When we started bringing soil from that place the neighbor of Suresh Biswas namely Sri Nikhil Sarkar, Anil Sarkar and Manju Sarkar told me that while we were digging the soil from the place pointed by Smt. Sasti Biswas we should take care not to cross the boundary. Thereafter there had been a quarrel between the Sasti Biswas and Manju Sarkar. We left the place at that time and cannot say what happened further. Anil Sarkar, Nikhil Sarkar and Smt. Manju Sarkar is present on the dock".
PW-4 (Sri Ratan Sarkar) states that, "I do not know Suresh Biswas and his wife Sasti Rani Biswas. I do not know Anil Sarkar, Nikhil Sarkar, Mousami Sarkar and Manju Sarkar. I do not know anything about the case."
PW-5 (Sri Suresh Biswas) states that, "I am the complainant of this case dated 20.3.09 at about 16.30 hours some hired labourers of mine were carrying some soil from my another land outside of my house to my said house. At that time the 4 accused persons namely Nikhil Sarkar, Anil Sarkar, Manju Sarkar and Mausumi Sarkar have wrongfully restrained my labourers to carry some soil at which my wife came there and asked the accused persons the reason of their restrainment. Thereafter the accused persons on such asking of my wife wrongfully caused hurt to her by fist and blows as result of which she has sustained injury on her person. At that time, I was not present at my house and when I turned to my house at about 19.00 hours I heard about such incident from my wife who is the victim of this case. Thereafter, I have filed a complaint petition before the court of law informing about such incident against the accused persons which has been written down by an advocate clerk Nakshatra Saha. I have also put my signature on the complaint petition after the content of the same has been read over to me and also founding it to be correct by me. These are my signatures on the complaint petition. The signature of the complainant are identified and exhibited as Exbt. 2(series). The accused persons namely Anil Sarkar is present today before this Court and also identified by the witness by name. The other accused persons are absent today before this court. If they would have present before the court, I could have identified them."
Considering the evidence on record and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of considered opinion that neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court have committed any wrong and no interference is called for.
With the above, the instant criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Send down the LCRs forthwith.