Judgment :- (1.) IN the instant criminal revisional application the petitioner sought for quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the supplementary charge-sheet submitted in connection with G. R. Case No. 1026 of 2006 arising out of Baruipur police Station Case No. 50/2004 under Sections 326/307/302/120b/34 of the indian Penal Code now pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Baruipur, South 24-Parganas. (2.) THE Baruipur Police Station Case No. 50/04 under Sections 326/307/302/120b/34 of the Indian Penal Code which subsequently gave rise to G. R. Case No. 1026/2006 now pending before the Learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24-Parganas was started on the basis of the allegations which are as follows; on March 21, 2004 at about 22. 40 hours while the daughter of the complainant Amina Bibi was engaged in cooking food, at that time the accused abed Ali Gazi @ Ali and his son Maidul Gazi being armed with deadly weapons forcibly entered their house and assaulted the daughter of the complainant as well as her husband. When the daughter of the complainant died on her way to hospital and her husband Samsuddin was admitted at Hospital with serious bleeding injury. It was the further allegations that one Rafique Laskar, a local villager while was trying to resist the miscreants was also assaulted. It was also the allegations that Mr. Rahaman Laskar and his wife Mafuja Bibi are also involved in a criminal conspiracy and with their help the aforesaid incident was occurred. When police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the three accused persons but so far as the petitioner herein Mafuja Bibi is concerned submitted final report praying for her discharge from the case. Subsequently, by an order dated February 16, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur in connection with the above noted case police started further investigation into the matter. However, after completion of further investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioner and Rahaman Ali Laskar under Sections 326/307/302/120b/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this criminal revision for quashing of the said supplementary charge-sheet. (3.) MR. Shataroop Purakayastha, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the instant case police initially examined two witnesses viz. Hence, this criminal revision for quashing of the said supplementary charge-sheet. (3.) MR. Shataroop Purakayastha, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the instant case police initially examined two witnesses viz. Mofizul Mistry and Asmat Ali Laskar who in their statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except saying that they heard about the petitioners involvement in the aforesaid case stated nothing. Similarly, when they were examined during the course of further investigation they repeated the same statement. Mr. Purakayastha further submitted that the said statement of the aforesaid witnesses are clearly hearsay in nature and has no evidentiary value. However, the Learned Court below took cognizance of the said offences on that basis. (4.) DURING the course of hearing of this case Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, produced the Case Diary containing all the relevant materials on the basis of which initially the charge-sheet has been submitted by the police as well as supplementary charge-sheet submitted in connection with the above noted case. Mr. Roy draws the attention of this Court to the statement of two witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the code of Criminal Procedure viz. the statement of one Mofizul Mistry as well as one Asmat Ali Laskar. (5.) I have carefully gone through the said statements and found both the said witnesses in their first statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of criminal Procedure only stated they heard that Rahaman Ali Laskar and his wife mafuja Bibi are also involved in the aforesaid incident of murder. While Asmat ali Laskar stated that he has no knowledge about the involvement of the Mafuja bibi. During the course of further investigation the witnesses were examined by the police. When Asmat Ali Laskar disclosed that long after the said incident of murder he came to learn that Rahaman Ali Laskar and his wife Mafuja Bibi helped the principal accused in different way. While Mofizul Mistry further stated that he heard that Rahaman Ali Laskar and his wife Mafuja Bibi were also behind the aforesaid incident in which Abed Ali Gazi and his son Maidul Gazi killed Amina and injured her husband Samsuddin. While Mofizul Mistry further stated that he heard that Rahaman Ali Laskar and his wife Mafuja Bibi were also behind the aforesaid incident in which Abed Ali Gazi and his son Maidul Gazi killed Amina and injured her husband Samsuddin. (6.) AFTER careful perusal of the Case Diary, I do not find any statement of any other witnesses who implicated the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. I have also gone through the statement of the Rafique laskar as well as the statement of the Samsuddin Sk. , who also sustained injury in the aforesaid incident. From their statement so recorded, I do not find anything against the present petitioner. In my opinion, the statement of the aforesaid witnesses viz. Mofizul Mistry and Asmat Ali Laskar are absolutely hearsay in nature. They have no direct knowledge as to how the present petitioner is allegedly involved in the commission of the alleged crime. I do not find any materials in the Case Diary which may be the foundation of filing of the impugned charge-sheet and justify forwarding of the petitioner for trial. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the charge-sheet as against the present petitioner is liable to be quashed. This criminal revisional application thus stands allowed and the impugned charge-sheet as against the present petitioner stands quashed.