Sukla Mukherjee & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal
2021 Latest Caselaw 5292 Cal

                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION


PRESENT:

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH

C.R.R. 2441 of 2012 (Via Video Conference)

Sukla Mukherjee & Ors.

-vs.-

The State of West Bengal

For the Petitioners : Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee Mr. Nazir Ahmed, Mr. Supreem Naskar, Ms. Ritushree Banerjee

For the State : Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Ms. Sujata Das, Ms. Debjani Sahu

Heard on : 21.09.2021 and 27.09.2021

Judgment on : 01.10.2021

Tirthankar Ghosh, J:-

The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the

charge-sheet filed in connection with Kanksa Police Station Case No. 167 of

2011 dated July 24, 2011 under Sections 498A/307/34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

The instant case was initiated on the basis of complaint addressed to

the Officer-in-Charge, Kanksa Police Station by Bandana Mukherjee. The

sum and substance of the allegations in the letter of complaint are as

follows:-

The complainant was married to Gobinda Mukherjee about 1 ½ years

back and the said marriage was a social marriage. The complainant alleges

that immediately after her marriage she was mentally and physically

tortured by her mother-in-law, Sukla Mukherjee; father-in-law, Murari

Mohan Mukherjee and brother-in-law, Manotosh Mukherjee. To that effect

earlier also she informed the police station and somehow or the other such

dispute was resolved. However, on 23rd July, 2011 at about 9.00 p.m. the

aforesaid 3 accused persons assaulted her and her husband Gobinda

Mukherjee and the younger brother-in-law i.e. Manotosh Mukherjee poured

kerosene over her body when she somehow fled away to save herself. Lastly,

she alleged that over this incident, her sister-in-law Anjana Bhattacharjee

and her husband Pradip Bhattacharjee were also involved.

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the peculiarity of

the present case is that the same has been initiated in order to grab the

property. The complainant has left out her husband and implicated rest of

the family members of matrimonial home in order to attain her ulterior

purpose. In view of the contentions advanced by the petitioners, Mr. Rana

Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing for the State, was directed to

produce the Case Diary. Accordingly, the Case Diary was produced before

this Court.

It reflects from the Case Diary that the Investigating Agency on

conclusion of investigation in connection with Kanksa Police Station Case

No. 167 of 2011 dated 24.07.2011 was pleased to submit charge-sheet

against the 5 petitioners who have approached this Court.

I have perused the Case Diary and the materials collected by the

Investigating Agency to arrive at their conclusion and assessed whether a

case under Sections 498A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been made

out against the accused/petitioners, and I have found that the prosecution

in order to prove its case has relied upon 9 witnesses, which includes the

complainant, Bandana Mukherjee; Gobinda Mukherjee, husband of the

complainant; Sanyashi Mazumdar, acquaintance of the complainant;

Bidhan Boral, neighbour of the complainant; Dipak Bose, neighbour of the

complainant; Dr. Rathin Mukherjee and 3 Police Authorities, namely, Sub-

Inspector Partha Ghosh, Ram Ranjan Patra and Sukumar Sen of Kanksa

Police Station.

I have perused the statement of the complainant as also the other

witnesses including the injury report and the statement made therein by the

complainant to Dr. Rathin Mukherjee. In the letter of complaint although

there are specific role in respect of the physical and mental torture being

inflicted upon the complainant by petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 but no definite

role of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are appearing. The injury report, which has

also been relied upon by the prosecution, do not refer to any complicity of

the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5. In fact in the injury report which is a statement

made by the complainant Bandana Mukherjee to the doctor it has been

stated as follows:-

"She was been assaulted by her father-in-law and mother-in-law and

brother-in-law. She was kicked on abd (5 months carrying) and was poured

kerosene with attempt to homicidal burn."

The only allegation made against the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are that

they were also involved in the offence.

In view of the materials appearing in the records of the case which

include the complaint, the injury report and the statement of witnesses it

can be said that there may be some suspicion against the petitioner No. 4

and 5 but no grave suspicion arise from the aforesaid materials on record.

Having regard to the settled principle of law under such circumstances, I am

of the opinion that the petitioner No. 4 and 5 should not be allowed to face

the ordeal of trial.

Consequently, the further continuance of the prosecution arising out

of the Kanksa Police Station Case No. 167 of 2011 dated 24.07.2011 and the

orders passed therein, so far as the petitioner No. 4 (Pradip Bhattacherjee)

and 5 (Anjana Bhattacherjee) are concerned, are hereby quashed.

However, the Learned Trial Court would invoke the provisions of

Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case materials surface

against them in course of evidence.

As there are materials appearing against the petitioner No.1 (Bandana

Mukherjee), petitioner No. 2 (Murari Mohan Mukherjee) and petitioner No. 3

(Manotosh Mukherjee), the trial should proceed against them. As such the

Learned Magistrate would take steps for progress of the trial of the case and

take the same to its logical conclusion within a reasonable period of time.

Thus, CRR 2441 of 2012 is partly allowed.

Pending application, if any, is consequently disposed of.

Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.

Case diary be returned to the Learned Advocate appearing for the

State.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)