Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 510 (CAL)

Laxmi DAS v. State of West Bengal

2014-06-13

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2014
JUDGMENT Ashim Kumar Roy, J. In connection with Durgapur Police Station Case No. 12/2008 total 4 persons were charge sheeted under section 306/109 IPC. Those charge sheeted accuseds are Babu Das, Dilip Das, Subrata Das and Lakhmi Das. While Babu Das is the alleged principal accused, who had a love affair with the deceased Souma Pal, the charge sheeted accused Dilip Das and Lakhmi Das are his parents and Subrata Das his real brother. Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court, Lakhmi Das, Dilip Das and Subrata Das have moved this court against the order passed by the trial court rejecting their prayer for discharge. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the de facto complainant. Perused the charge sheeted materials and the impugned order. In a sessions triable case, when an accused invoking the provision of Section 227 Cr.P.C, moved the Court seeking discharge from any case, the court is essentially required to consider the charge-shetted materials viz., the evidentiary material collected during investigation and proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution against accused during trial and to hear him and the prosecution and if thereafter, the court finds there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, the accused person is to be discharged by recording the reasons therefor. Thus, in the quest of considering the question of discharge, the trial court is only required to consider whether the charge sheeted materials on the face of the same and without disputing the correctness thereof, disclosed commission of any offence or not. At that stage, the question of reliability of those materials cannot be gone into. Even the trial court is not empowered to appreciate those materials and accepting the same to be reliable cannot embark upon an enquiry to ascertain whether those are sufficient for conviction or not. At that stage no fishing and roving enquiry is permissible. Now coming to the case at hand, I find, on behalf of the petitioner several purported writings of the deceased contained in the diary maintained by deceased Souma during her life time has been annexed with this application. It is not disputed that said diary was seized by the police during investigation. Now coming to the case at hand, I find, on behalf of the petitioner several purported writings of the deceased contained in the diary maintained by deceased Souma during her life time has been annexed with this application. It is not disputed that said diary was seized by the police during investigation. Nothing reflects from the records that whether those writings were sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion along with her admitted writings to ascertain whether she was at all the author of those writings or not. Therefore, same cannot be taken into consideration by this court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submitted that both the victim and the principal accused Babu were of the same locality and during investigation police examined several neighbours of them. It is further submitted out of those neighbours, the evidence of Nirmal Dutta, Kartick Bhowmik, Mridul Saha, Nihar Pal and Rejina Khatoon are quite relevant for just decision in the matter. According to him their statement clearly indicated the petitioners involvement in the commission of the alleged offence, therefore the learned Judge very rightly rejected their prayer for discharge from the case. Learned Counsel of the de facto complainant adopted the submissions made from the side of the state. He further contended that due to the petitioners namely parents and the brother of the principal accused Babu Das, his long standing love affair with the deceased Souma Pal could not be matured and at the behest of these petitioners the accused Babu Das refused to marry her. Thereafter on the day from which Souma Pal was not traceable, she committed suicide by jumping in front of a running train. Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered their respective submissions. Perused the charge sheeted materials and the impugned order. Going through the FIR lodged by the uncle of the deceased Souma Pal, I find that according to the informant the petitioners allegedly encouraged the principal accused Babu Das and the deceased to continue with their love affair and although on several occasions they were requested to prevent their son so that the study and future of their daughter may not hamper, still they did not pay any heed to such request. Now, coming to the statement of the witnesses namely Nirmal Dutta, Kartick Bhowmick, Mridul Saha, Nihar Pal and Rejina Khatoon on whom much reliance have been placed from the side of the state I further found as follows:- a. Nirmal Dutta a neighbour of the petitioner. According to the said witness a few day back he noticed heavy altercation was going on inside the house of the petitioners and then observed that was taking place between Babu and deceased Souma , over the refusal of Babu to admit his relation with the deceased and refused to marry her. At that time the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were not present in the house. He claimed that the Babu as also the petitioners are responsible for the suicide committed by the victim. b. Kartick Bhowmick a neighbour of the petitioner. This witness disclosed on various occasions the father of the deceased had been to the house of the petitioners and requested them to ensure that the relation between his daughter and their son may not turn to a problem, but he was ridiculed and insulted by the petitioners. Many girls used to visit their house. According to him 4 to 5 days before the day when Souma committed suicide she had been to the house of Babu’s, when she was mocked, ridiculed and insulted and was driven out from the house. When the witness realised that Babu would not marry her and his mother Lakhmi Das a CPI(M) worker was responsible for that. The family of the petitioners was ill reputed and Babu had the habit of mixing with many girls.. c. Mridul Saha a neighbour of Babu Das. According to this witness for last one year there was continuous quarrel between the family of the petitioners and deceased, and the witness was told by the deceased that she loved Babu and as he refused to marry her she was going to commit suicide. She also told the witness that she hate both Babu and his mother. Her mother used to mis-behave with her frequently. c. Niloy Pal father of the Souma Pal They knew that she had a love affair with Babu and therefore as and when she used to go for school and tuition her mother would always accompany her. She also told the witness that she hate both Babu and his mother. Her mother used to mis-behave with her frequently. c. Niloy Pal father of the Souma Pal They knew that she had a love affair with Babu and therefore as and when she used to go for school and tuition her mother would always accompany her. His daughter was always insulted and ill treated by the members of the family of Babu Das whenever she visited their house. d. Kaushik Bhattacharyya a coaching mate of the deceased. The said witness on the fateful day met the deceased when she told him that she was going to call Babu from a phone booth. While talking with Babu over phone she was speaking in a very loud voice and quarreling with Babu. Shortly thereafter he left the booth. He was told by the deceased that Babu had affair with many other girls. e. Rejina Khatoon coaching mate of the deceased. She knew all about the love affair between the deceased and the accused Babu. The parents of deceased had been to the house of the petitioners and requested them to stop their son but he was insulted, ridiculed and driven out from their house. On 28th June, 2008 the deceased had been to the residence of Babu and asked him to marry her when Babu and his mother insulted her and drove her out from their house. When the deceased told them that she would not survive without Babu, Babu and his mother told her she need not be alive and she might die. Therefore, on the face of the aforesaid statement no prima facie materials is there against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 indicating their involvement in the commission of suicide by Souma. It was categorical evidence of witness Nirmal Dutta when the quarrel was going on, on the fateful day at the residence of the petitioners’ both of them were not present there. The only allegation against them is that they ridiculed and insulted the father of the deceased when he approached the accused persons stop their son from continuing relation with his daughter. So far as the, petitioner no. 3 is concerned I find there are prima facie materials against her. According to the witness Rejina Khatoon she was told by the deceased Souma that when Souma told Babu and his mother, the petitioner no. So far as the, petitioner no. 3 is concerned I find there are prima facie materials against her. According to the witness Rejina Khatoon she was told by the deceased Souma that when Souma told Babu and his mother, the petitioner no. 3 herein that she could not survive without Babu they told her that she need not be alive and might die. Having regard to such statement there is nothing wrong in framing charge against her for an offence under section 306 IPC. Having regards to that it cannot be said no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner no.3. In the result, this application succeeds in part. While the charge sheet against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 stands quashed and they are directed to be discharged. This application, so far as against the petitioner No.3, fails and stands dismissed. The interim order if any also stands vacated. In the light of the disposal of the main criminal revision, the CRAN application being CRAN No. 1946 of 2013 is also disposed of.