Kanchan Chakraborty, J. - (1.) THE challenge in this revisional application is to the judgment and order dated 15th December, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Burdwan in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2002 (S.T. No. 32 of 2003) thereby acquitting the accused-opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) from the charges under Sections 498A and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE petitioner, being the defacto-complainant of the case, has come up with this application for revision challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment impugned on the following grounds: (1) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper and true perspective; (2) that the learned Court failed to consider the settled principles of law in the matter of considering the statement made by the P.W. 1 vis--vis the First Information Report; (3) that the learned Trial Court failed to assign any reason as to why the oral testimonies of P.Ws. 12, 13, 17 21 and 25 were disbelieved; (4) that the learned Trial Court erred in accepting the evidence of P.W. 22 in part and disbelieving remaining part of his evidence; (5) that the learned Trial Court was entirely wrong in holding that the P.W. 6 was a tutored witness and that evidence of the witness nos. 11, 13, 18 and 20 altogether established the prosecution case; (6) that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the conduct of the opposite parties; (7) that the learned Trial Court overlooked material evidence and put much stress on irrelevant and immaterial evidence; and (8) that the judgment impugned, being otherwise bad in law, is liable to be set aside. In brief, the case of the prosecution in the learned Trial Court is that the marriage of Kalpana and Swapan Dutta took place in the year 1995 and in their wedlock, one son and one daughter were born. Kalpana was subjected to physical and mental torture in her matrimonial house by her in-laws including her husband Swapan. Despite the fact that all the demands were met by the defacto-complainant, the in-laws including the husband of Kalpana increased the decree of torture on her and created pressure to bring more money from her parents. She was not provided with adequate food and allowed to go to her parents house. On 25.03.2002, in the morning, the defacto-complainant, Samiran received an information that Kalpana was set on fire by her in-laws. Receiving the information, Samiran rushed to the matrimonial house of Kalpana and found nobody there. He went to Burdwan Medical College and Hospital and found burnt dead-body of Kalpana. Apprehending strongly that Kalpana was burnt alive, Samiran lodged one First Information Report on 25.03.2002 in the Burdwan Police Station. On the basis of the said First Information Report, the case was investigated into and the investigation was ended in a charge sheet under Sections 498A and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties. The learned Trial Court, however, framed charges against them under Section 498A and Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite parties pleaded not guilty to the charges and, accordingly, the trial commenced. In course of trial, 25 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The First Information Report, one letter of the P.W. 1, one mass petition, Inquest Report, post-mortem Report, one statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and one Sketch map of the place of occurrence were admitted into evidence and marked exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. One zarican of kerosene oil and brunt pieces of cloth of the victim were also admitted into evidence and marked material exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. No witness was examined from the defence side. The opposite parties pleaded their innocence and denied the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court recorded acquittal of the opposite parties.
(3.) THE defacto-complainant, Samiran, has come up with this application for revision of the judgment praying for setting aside of the same and for retrial/rehearing of the case on the grounds stated earlier. THE point to be considered is whether the judgment impugned is sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside by exercising revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Mr. Adhikari, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have made consistent and corroborating evidence. There was no reason for the learned Trial Court to discard their evidence. Mr. Adhikari contended, the prosecution case has been established by the statements made by the defacto-complainant under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exbt. 16), the Post-mortem Report (Exbt. 15), the Report of Hospital (Exbt. 13), the Inquest Report (Exbt. 9) and the letter written by Samiran and others to the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan (Exbt. 4). He contended further that there was no dispute as to the fact that Kalpana died due to severe burnt injuries in her matrimonial house. The letter written by Samiran and others (Exbt. 4) goes to indicate that the signatories therein, including the defacto-complainant, made it clear that the opposite parties caused death of Kalpana by setting her on fire and left the house soon thereafter. He also contended that the learned Trial Court ought to have given importance on the seizure list (Exbt. 7) wherefrom it appears that in course of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case seized one small zarican of kerosene oil, some burnt pieces of cloths and match-stick from the house of the opposite parties. He contended that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the post-occurrence conduct of the opposite parties because they were not found in the house immediately after the incident. This apart, Mr. Adhikari, contended that P.W. 11, a teacher attached to Mirzapur Dakshin Palli Mangal Vidyalaya and the resident of Mirzapur and being the Gram Panchayet Prodhan of Saraitikar Gram Panchayet stated that the defacto-complainant, Samiran, complained him regarding behaviour of the opposite parties towards Kalpana. He contended further that P.W. 11 stated that initiatives were taken from the side of Panchayet to resolve the family dispute. Therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have accepted the fact that Kalpana was a victim of physical and mental torture in her matrimonial house. Mr. Adhikari contended that P.W. 21 stated in his examination-in-chief that he found the burnt body of Kalpana was being carried by a van and on enquiry, Goutam (O.P. no. 4) told him that he would tell him in detail afterwards. He also stated that he found opposite party no. 2 and others in his village at 10 A.M. on that date, which was three kilometers away from the house of the opposite parties. The fact that the opposite parties left the house immediately after the incident was established by the evidence of P.W. 21. But, the learned Trial Court did not place any reliance on his statement. Mr. Adhikari contended further that the most important and vital witness of the case was P.W. 8, i.e., the minor son of the deceased and Swapan Dutta. Mr. Adhikari contended that his statement not only established the prosecution case but also had shown how Kalpana, the victim, was tortured first of all and, thereafter, set on fire. There was no reason, whatsoever, for the learned Trial Court to discard his evidence simply on the ground that he was a tutored witness. Besides that the evidence of the people of locality was not accepted by the learned Trial Court without assigning any reason, whatsoever.;