Laxman Karmakar vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 4383 Cal

24.08.2021
Court No.42
Item No.5
SB
                        CRA 104 of 2017

                           Laxman Karmakar
                                 Vs
                         The State of West Bengal & Anr.

                    Mr. Sujan Chatterjee,            ... amicus curiae

                    Mr. S.G.Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.
                    Ms. Debjani Sahoo                ... for the State


                    Mr. Sujan Chatterjee, learned advocate on record who

              had preferred this appeal on behalf of the appellant convict

              undergoing sentence is present and submits that his client

              had taken no objection from him.

                    It appears from the order sheet that one Mr. Kazi

              Safiullah with Mr. Prasanta Kumar Das, learned advocates

              had appeared for the appellant but without filing any

              Vokalatnama and none has made any appearance on

              repeated call.

                    Pursuant to the order dated 17.08.2021, learned

              Registrar Administration (L & OM) has placed note with

              regard to the removal of defects in the exhibit list of the

              original case records in connection with the Sessions Case

              No. 132 of 2013 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 4

              (7)/2013. The report of Superintendent of Dum Dum Central

              Correctional Home dated 20.08.2021 which reflects that

              Laxman Karmakar son of Sudhir Karmakar was released from

              custody on 01.04.2021 after payment of fine as per the order

              dated 31.03.2021 of learned Additional District and Sessions

              Judge, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas which is
                                2




also in the docket to reveal that the fine amount of

Rs.10,000/- was deposited. Thus, it appears that the

appellant has served out the sentence.

      On request of this Court, Mr. Sujan Chatterjee, learned

advocate on record now present before this Court submits on

the merit of the case, although, he has relinquished his

responsibility for the appellant. However, as Amicus Curiae

he is permitted to address the Court on merit.

      By the impugned judgment the appellant was found

guilty of the offence under Sections 376(2)(f)/511 of the

Indian Penal Code and was convicted thereunder and was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of five

years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to

simple imprisonment for another six months. The direction

was also given for set off of pre-trial detention undergone by

the appellant and that 75% of the fine if realised would be

given to the victim girl as compensation under Section 357(1)

of the Cr.P.C.

      The appellant on being aggrieved by and dissatisfied

with the impugned judgement preferred this appeal inter alia

on the ground that the F.I.R. does not find corroboration by its

maker and secondly that the impugned order of conviction

and sentence is without appreciation of the evidence on

record which has prejudiced the appellant. It is also submitted

that the prosecution never produced the article seized during

trial and the seizure witnesses were never confronted and

that the prosecution case is highly improbable as the victim

was not taken to any doctor from the period of 15.10.2012 to
                                 3




29.10.2012 and the medical evidence adduced by the doctor

(PW6) is in departure from the evidence of the victim girl.

        I have considered the submission so made by the

Amicus Curiae but on appraisal of evidence on record in

totality, more particularly, the evidence of the victim girl (PW3)

and her statement before the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Barrackpore on 28.10.2012 recorded under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. taken together with the evidence of

doctor (P.W.6), this Court is fully convinced that prosecution

has been able to substantiate the charge leveled against the

appellant-convict beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Thus,

having heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the

appellant and Ms. Debjani Sahoo, learned Advocate for the

State, this Court finds no ground in this appeal to interfere

with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

        Since, the appellant has already served out the

sentence and released thereof upon payment of fine amount,

the criminal appeal being C.R.A. 104 of 2017 is hereby

dismissed and disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial

Court to remit 75% of the deposited fine amount to the victim

girl.

        Let the Lower Court Records together with a copy of

this judgement be sent down to the learned Trial Court for

information and necessary note in the Sessions Register and

for doing the needful.
        .

(Shivakant Prasad, J.)