Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1161 (GAU)

Tarani Sutradhar v. State of Assam

2017-08-24

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This is a criminal revision petition, filed by the informant against the judgment and order dated 27.7.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Sessions Case No. 19/2007, acquitting the accused-respondent No. 2. 2. Heard Ms. P Bhattacharya learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, learned Additional PP for the State. 3. The prosecution case, as appears from the evidence on record, is that the informant, who is a carpenter, worked at Guwahati. Most of the time he did not stay with his wife at his house. Taking advantage of his absence, his wife has developed illicit relationship with the accused, who is a neighbour, and even the wife of the informant mothered her second child through the accused. On the date of occurrence, on 19.10.2006, while the informant was sleeping with his wife/PW5 Geeta, he found in the midnight that she was not on the bed. He searched, but could not find her. Thereafter, he could come to know, after seeing the clothes of his wife in the house of the accused that the accused-respondent had kidnapped his wife. Thereafter, he lodged the FIR on 31.10.2006. 4. On receipt of the FIR, Barpeta Police Station registered a case, being No. 772/2006, under section 366, IPC. After the case was registered by the Barpeta Police Station, investigated into it, collected evidence, arrested the accused on 4.11.2006, recovered the victim, and finally, submitted charge sheet against the accused-respondent under section 366, IPC. 5. The learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, on receipt of the case, on being committed, framed a formal charge against the accused-respondent on 22.1.2007, under section 366, IPC and proceeded with the trial. 6. The persecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor. 7. The accused-respondent found to have denied the accusations by way of cross-examination of the witnesses. But, the defence did not examine any witness on its own. In his statement, recorded under section 313, Cr. PC also, the accused is found to have denied the accusation levelled against him. 8. Let us now scan the evidence on record to see whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge under section 366, IPC. 9. PW1 Sri Tarani Sutradhar is the informant in this case. He lodged the FIR. PC also, the accused is found to have denied the accusation levelled against him. 8. Let us now scan the evidence on record to see whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge under section 366, IPC. 9. PW1 Sri Tarani Sutradhar is the informant in this case. He lodged the FIR. He stated in his evidence that the accused-respondent had kidnapped his wife and he noticed some clothes of his wife in the house of the accused-respondent. PW2 Sri Nanigopal Sutradhar also deposed that he heard that Geeta, i.e., the wife of the informant PW1, examined as PW5 in this case, was kidnapped by the accused-respondent. PW3 Naryan Sutradhar also heard about the kidnapping of PW5 Geeta by the accused. He has further stated in his evidence that he did not give statement before the police under section 161, Cr. PC. PW4 Sri Harikrishna Das also heard about the occurrence. PW5 Geeta/victim herself is found to have stated in her evidence that as she was subjected to torture and atrocities by the informant/her husband, at about 10:00 p.m., on the date of occurrence, she left for her parental home and stayed there. She has not at all alleged in her evidence that accused-respondent had any role in her leaving the house of the informant PW1 or that she was kidnapped or abducted by the accused-respondent. The fact, she has narrated as PW5, appears to have an interesting twist from the fact that she stated before the learned Magistrate at the time of recording her statement under section 164, Cr. PC. In her such statement, recorded under section 164, Cr. PC, which is exhibited as Ext.2 in the case, makes it appear that during the absence of her husband from his place, she developed illicit relationship with the accused-respondent and even mothered her second child, aged about 1 year, on the date of recording her statement under section 164, Cr. PC, and that they were in such illicit relationship for about 2 years prior to the date of occurrence. In the statement under section 164, Cr. PC, she had made no allegation of kidnapping her by the accused-respondent. 10. In view of the such evidence of the PW5/victim herself, there does not appear any reason to discuss about the evidence of the remaining witnesses. In the statement under section 164, Cr. PC, she had made no allegation of kidnapping her by the accused-respondent. 10. In view of the such evidence of the PW5/victim herself, there does not appear any reason to discuss about the evidence of the remaining witnesses. In her evidence as PW5, she has not implicated the accused-respondent for the commission of alleged offence, and even in her statement, recorded under section 164, Cr. PC, also, although she has stated some other facts, yet on the principal issue that whether she was kidnapped by the accused-respondent or not, she never implicated the accused-respondent. That being so, since the PW5/victim herself has not implicated the accused-respondent, there is nothing found that the accused-respondent guilty with the commission of the alleged offence under section 366, IPC. 11. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, appears to be based on the evidence on record. There is no illegality or impropriety in the judgment. Therefore, no interference by this court in exercise of universal jurisdiction is called for. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. 12. Send down the LCR along with the copy of this judgment.