Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 343 (CAL)

Madan Chandra Jana v. State of West Bengal

2002-05-17

Amit Talukdar

body2002
JUDGMENT Amit Talukdar, J. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.4.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore in Criminal Motion No.93 of 1993 dismissing the Revisional Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the order of acquittal of the opposite parties as passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal in G.R. Case No.249 of 1984. 2. The brief fact leading to filing of the application is as follows :- 3. On the basis of a charge sheet submitted by P.W.7 the opposite parties were impleaded in G.R. Case No.249 of 1984 before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, to answer the following charges- "Firstly-That you, on or about the 22nd day of August, 1984 at Banskhal under P.S. Daspur were a member of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly committed the offence of rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Secondly, That you, on or about the same day at same place wrongfully confined Madan Chandra Jana and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Thirdly, That you, on or about the same day and at same place voluntarily caused grievious hurt to Madan Chandra Jana and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Fourthly, That you, on or about the 22nd day of August 1984, at Banskhal under P.S. Daspur committed criminal intimidation by threatening Madan Chandra Jana with injury to his person and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code." 4. Since the opposite parties pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial and the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses. 5. P.W.1 was the de facto complainant and the victim himself; P.Ws.2 and 4 were eye-witnesses; P.W.3 heard the incident from P.W.1; P.W.5 was an A.S.I. of Police who received the written complaint and registered the formal F.I.R.; P.W.6 was Medical Officer who examined P.W.1; and P.W.7 investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. 6. The defence examined one witness. 7. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal after considering the evidence and other materials on record acquitted the opposite parties from all the charges framed against them. 8. 6. The defence examined one witness. 7. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal after considering the evidence and other materials on record acquitted the opposite parties from all the charges framed against them. 8. A revision was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore dismissed the said application and affirmed the order of acquittal. It is the said order which has been impugned in this application at the behest of the petitioner on several grounds. 9. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and subsequently affirmed by the Revisional Court was passed on a wrongful appreciation of the evidence and other materials on record. The learned lawyer for the petitioner further submitted that inadmissible evidence was taken into account by the learned courts below and the injury in the leg of P.W.1 was not considered by the trial Court and the lower revisional Court misdirected itself in affirming the said order. As such, he has prayed for setting aside the said order. 10. The learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties submitted that as both the Courts below has come to their respective conclusion with regard to the innocence of the opposite parties, such an order of acquittal cannot be interfered with in the absence of any glaring illegality; more so, in view of the fact that the incident took place on 22.8.1984 and a long time has passed in the meanwhile and she has prayed for dismissing the revisional application. 11. She has further taken another objection that this application is a second revisional application being not maintainable. 12. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite parties. I have also perused the evidence and other materials on record including the judgment of both the Courts. 13. Although this is a second revisional application as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for the opposite parties, but, however, I have independently considered the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court as if for the first time so as to ascertain as to whether there has been any failure of justice. 14. 13. Although this is a second revisional application as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for the opposite parties, but, however, I have independently considered the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court as if for the first time so as to ascertain as to whether there has been any failure of justice. 14. After a careful analysis of the evidence and other materials on record the learned trial Court held: "In such a position I am in considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case by connecting the accused persons with the charged offence and in this case the accused persons came to the place of occurrence at a time not been stated by anybody and the place of occurrence neither in plot No. 114 or 115 not has been stated by the prosecution side even the La. himself......... ." and record an order of acquittal. The said finding of the learned trial Court was affirmed by the Revisional Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore in Criminal Motion No.93 of 1993 concluded :- “........... . although this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction has no scope to enter into re-appraisal of the evidence, still in making the same I have no doubt of hesitation to hold that the appraisal of the evidence as made by the ld. trial Court cannot at all be said to be improper. Therefore, since I find no glaring defect in procedure and no manifest error on point of law and since the appraisal of the evidence made by the ld. Court below cannot also be said to be improper in view of my discussions and findings as above. I hold that this Criminal Motion has no merit in it and the same is, therefore, about to fail." 15. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court which was a result of meticulous analysis of the evidence and other making on record has been again reappraised by the learned Revisional Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore who affirmed the said order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 16. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court which was a result of meticulous analysis of the evidence and other making on record has been again reappraised by the learned Revisional Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore who affirmed the said order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 16. This Court even if in exercise of its inherent powers virtually is left with the option of ascertaining as to whether there has been any abuse of the process of the law as otherwise it is barred from again reappraising the evidence which has been done by the revisional Court below. This Court finds that from the impugned judgment it cannot be said that there has been any failure of justice and the inherent powers of this Court has to be invoked to prevent the abuse of the process of law. Not only it is by now settled law that in an order of acquittal the Court should be very slow, particularly in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, to interfere with the same but it cannot substitute its own finding in place of the same arrived at by the learned trial Court. 17. As such, apart from the established principles as discussed here-in-above this Court does not find any defect in the order of acquittal of the learned Trial Court subsequently affirmed by the revisional Court below and refuses to interfere with the matter. 18. The revisional application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Let the records be sent down. Reuisional application dismissed.