Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 653 (CAL)

Madan Dey v. State

2011-05-11

KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. THE judgment of the Court was as follows:- This revisional application has been filed at the instance of one Sri Madan Dey, the person who set the criminal action into motion by lodging the F.I.R in the Liluah P. S. on 09.08.1997. In that FIR it was alleged that his mother Uma Dey was a Class IV staff of Belgachia Maharshi Aswini Dutta Bidyapith at the relevant period of time and that she was abused, insulted and man-handled by the opposite party, Sankar Kumar Dalui, who was Assistant Teacher in the said school at the relevant period of time. She was slapped and as a result lost her sense. His mother was taken to hospital for treatment. On the basis of the said F.I.R, Liluah P. S. Case No. 62/97 dated 09.08.1997 under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was started. The investigation into the case was ended in a charge-sheet against the opposite party No. 2 under Sections 341/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party pleaded not guilty to the charges so framed against him and accordingly the trial commenced. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the evidence on record found the opposite party Sankar Kumar Dalui not guilty to the offences and acquitted him therefrom. 2. THE petitioner has come up with this application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order of acquittal mainly on the grounds that the learned Court failed to appreciate the oral testimonies of the P.W. 2 (Uma Dey), the victim and P.W. 13 (Sital Samanta), an eye witness. The point to be decided in this revisional application are whether the order under challenge is sustainable in law and whether this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction in order to set aside the order for retrial or rehearing. Mr. Abhijit Adhya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the learned Court ought to have believed the statement of the P. W. 2 and P.W. 13. 3. HE takes me to the evidence of P.W. 2 and submits that P. W. 2 (Uma Dey), the mother of P.W. 1 (de facto complainant/petitioner) stated categorically that she was slapped by the opposite party, who pushed her down and as a result, she lost her sense. There was an altercation between them over an issue of hammering of bell in the school after closing of 4th period. There was an altercation between them over an issue of hammering of bell in the school after closing of 4th period. 4. MR. Adhya, learned Advocate for the petitioner takes me to the evidence of P.W. 13 and submits that P.W. 13 has corroborated the statement of P.W. 2. P.W. 13 was a student of the school at the relevant period of time and had no reason to implicate the opposite party No. 2 in a false criminal case. Mr. Adhya contends that the learned Court ought to have believed the statements of the P.W. 2 and P.W. 13 and record conviction instead of acquittal. 5. MR. Milon Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 contends that the judgment impugned neither suffers from any infirmity and illegality nor the learned trial Court overlooked any material evidence necessitating interference by this Court in revision. He submits that the judgment impugned is well reasoned and the learned trial Court has taken pain to consider all relevant/material evidence on record including the evidence of P.W. 2 as well as the P.W. 13. Therefore, according to MR. Mukherjee, this revisional application is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 6. I have carefully gone through the judgment under challenge as well as the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court. The fact that the P.W. 2, who happened to be the mother of the de facto complainant (P.W. 1) was a Class IV staff of the school and the opposite party No.2 was the Assistant Teacher of the school at the relevant period of time has not been denied. It is also not denied by either of the parties that there was an altercation between the P.W. 2 and the opposite party No.2 over the hammering of the bell in the school after the 4th period. The P.W. 1 is not an ocular witness. He heard the entire fact from his mother in the hospital. P.W. 2, Uma Dey stated in her cross-examination that the incident alleged took place inside the Teacher's Room. P.W. 13 was not the teacher of the school, but a student at the relevant period of time. Therefore, ordinarily he was not supposed to be inside the Teacher's Room at the relevant time the incident had taken place. P.W. 2, Uma Dey stated in her cross-examination that the incident alleged took place inside the Teacher's Room. P.W. 13 was not the teacher of the school, but a student at the relevant period of time. Therefore, ordinarily he was not supposed to be inside the Teacher's Room at the relevant time the incident had taken place. P.W. 3 (Chittaranjan Sarkar), P.W. 4 (Nara Narayan Dhar), P.W. 5 (Tarak Nath Dwan), P.W. 6 (Arun Kumar Debnath), P.W. 7 (Sri Ratri Bhattacharya) all the Assistant Teachers of the school stated categorically that the opposite party passed bad remarks to the P.W. 2 and there was hot exchange of words and the situation became very grave. The P. W. 2 fell ill and was taken to hospital. None of them has supported the prosecution case that the opposite party slapped the P. W. 2. P. W. 4 (Nara Narayan Dhar), an Assistant Teacher stated that the opposite party neither abused nor assaulted the P.W. 2. P.W. 8 (Salil Dey) is one of the Class IV staff of the school and he stated that he found the P.W. 4 to take Uma Dey to Headmaster's Room where she was sitting and thereafter she went to Teacher's Room and fell ill. She was taken to the Howrah General Hospital. P.W. 9 (Dilip Dhara) appears to be very important witness. He was the Headmaster of the school. He stated that on completion of his class, he had been to the staff room and found that P.W. 2 was in exciting state and there was an altercation between her and the opposite party. P.W. 2 thereafter took a tablet and lay down on a bench. Some of the teachers took her to the Howrah General Hospital. There is no reason for the trial Court to ignore the evidence of the P.W. 9 and all the Assistant Teachers who have been examined by the prosecution. P.W. 10 (Sabyasachi Sarkar) and P.W. 11 (Samir Biswas) have not also admitted the prosecution case that the opposite party No.2 slapped the P.W. 2. P.W. 12 (Dr. Samir Kumar Bhattacharya of Howrah General Hospital) stated that the P.W. 2 was admitted under Dr. B. Dasgupta on 09.08.1997 and she was released on 12.8.1997. The patient was having Isschaemic Heart Disease. No history of assault was stated by the P.W. 2 or recorded by Dr. B. Dasgupta. P.W. 12 (Dr. Samir Kumar Bhattacharya of Howrah General Hospital) stated that the P.W. 2 was admitted under Dr. B. Dasgupta on 09.08.1997 and she was released on 12.8.1997. The patient was having Isschaemic Heart Disease. No history of assault was stated by the P.W. 2 or recorded by Dr. B. Dasgupta. P.W. 13 (Sital Sarkar) is the student of the school who, however, supported the statement of the P.W. 2 by stating that the opposite party No. 2 slapped the P.W. 2 and pushed her on the floor. In his cross-examination, P.W. 13 admitted that the opposite party No. 2 caught him red-handed while he was copying during annual examination of Class IX. This goes to show that there was reason for him to support the P. W. 2. Upon analysis of the evidence, I find that the learned Court has taken each and every evidence into consideration. No relevant and material evidence was overlooked. The learned Court has not also put unnecessary reliance on irreverent, immaterial evidence and recorded acquittal. 7. THIS does not appear to be a proper case where this Court should exercise revisional jurisdiction in order to set aside the order of acquittal especially when invoked by a private person. Accordingly, I dismiss the revisional application being devoid of any merit. The revisional application is disposed of accordingly. S. B.