Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - (1.) The impugned order dated 15.01.19 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranaghat, Nadia in SC-8(7)2017 arising out of Taherpur Police Station Case No. 89/2017 dated 01.04.2017 under Sections 302/307/326/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, rejecting the prayer for discharge of revisionist/petitioner under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the subject of challenge in this revisional application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
(2.) Learned advocate, Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, for the revisionist submitted that statement of the witnesses so far collected including co-accused persons implicating the revisionist/accused in the instant case, did not demonstrate prima facie materials to exist against him raising a reasonable presumption of commission of offence against the accused, without which learned Judge ought not to have proceeded to frame charge against him rejecting his prayer for discharge. In support of the prayer for discharge, it was contended that learned Judge proceeded to rely upon statements collected under Section 161 Cr. P.C., but at the same time failed to consider two statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164, namely, Tapas Paul and Bidyut Biswas, wherein name of the revisionist/accused remained undisclosed. Since, the revisionist/accused did not actually take part in the altercation held between the deceased, and the accused persons as specifically named in the FIR, and since the revisionist did not participate in the penultimate action of causing bodily harm upon the deceased, that the revisionist/accused should have been favoured with an order of discharge by the learned Judge under Section 227 Cr. P.C..
(3.) Further submission was raised, that the prosecution story revealed from the statement recorded having been diluted ultimately in the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., the learned Magistrate ought to have taken care of such situation by recording a discharge under Section 227 Cr. P.C. in order to prevent the accused from undertaking the agony of trial. Since the name of the accused person did not figure in the FIR itself, and since his name having transpired in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C,. Leaned Judge ought to have satisfied that the meterials produced before him were shrowded with some doubt entailing a discharge therefor under Section 227 Cr. P.C. in a particular case, where there is no recovery under the Arms Act, without which consequent charge is not sustainable.;