SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) This instant criminal appeal emanates from the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 26.11.2009 and 27.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tehatta, Nadia in connection with S.T. No. 2 (8) of 2008 arising out of Sessions Case No. 65 (7) of 2008. By filing this appeal, the convicts/appellants prayed for setting aside the said judgment and order of conviction on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives and the learned Trial Court did not consider the serious faulty investigation of the prosecution case.
(2.) At the time of argument, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict/appellant wanted to assail the said judgment on multi -spoked grounds viz., delayed F.I.R., inconsistency in evidence, not mentioning the names of the assailants, before whom the victim was medically treated, non - production of material witnesses, non -sending the formal F.I.R. and written complaint to the Magistrate within the stipulated time, delay in recording the statement of the victim etc. As against this, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state vehemently argued delayed F.I.R. is not fatal, (if explanation is given) and minor discrepancies should not be looked through a magnifying glass. He also contended that in terms of Section 231 Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the choice of the prosecution as to whom that would produce as witness in support of their case. Lastly, he contended that mere technicality should not stand in the way of conviction.
(3.) This Court has the opportunity to hear the erudite submission of both parties and in the interest of effective adjudication, facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the evidence led by the prosecution has to be scrutinized minutely.;