Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Uttam Maity & Anr vs State Of W.B. & Anr on 9 February, 2022
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
C.R.R. 23 of 2022
Uttam Maity & anr.
Vs.
State of W.B. & anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das
: Mr. Kapil Ch. Sahoo
: Mr. Kanailal Dutta
: Mr. S. K. Mondal
...for the petitioners
Heard on: 9th February, 2022
Judgment on : 9th February, 2022
The Court:
This is application praying for quashing of a proceeding in
which a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341 and 376D of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is
taken on record.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits
as follows. The petitioners are the accused in this case. There is a
long-standing dispute between the adverse parties. In fact, the
petitioners are related to the 15 years old victim girl. Several cases
were earlier filed from the petitioners' end against the relatives of the
opposite party no.2. A counter case was also filed by the other side.
The present case has been foisted against the accused only to wreak
vengeance. No prima facie case is made out as would be evident from
a plain reading of the First Information Report and the charge-sheet.
The petitioners are absolutely innocent and have not committed the
offences alleged.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing
on behalf of the petitioners and have perused the revision petition
including the First Information Report and the charge-sheet appended
thereto.
From the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the
petitioners, it appears that by an order dated 17.12.2021 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in CRR No. 8114 of 2021, an application
for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners and some others was
dismissed by this Court. This Court was pleased to hold that there
was prima facie material disclosing involvement of the petitioners for
subjecting the minor to a gang rape. After rejection of the prayer for
anticipatory bail, a warrant of arrest was admittedly issued against
the petitioners.
As would be evident from a plain reading of the First
Information Report, which was lodged by an independent villager, the
minor victim girl was accosted by all the accused and thereafter taken
to a jungle where the accused nos. 1 and 2 committed rape upon her.
Therefore, all the accused could be charged with the offence of gang
rape.
After going through the First Information Report and the charge-
sheet, it appears that a prima facie case is made out against the
petitioners under Section 341 and 376D of the Penal Code and
Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.
Animus between two parties is a double edged weapon. It may
either give rise to a false implication or be a strong motive for the
commission of an offence. In the present case, the purported existence
of previous litigations between the parties do not help the present
petitioners any bit.
Moreover, whether the petitioners are actually guilty of such
offences is clearly a disputed question of fact that can be decided only
during trial.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered
to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon
compliance of all formalities.
(Jay Sengupta,J.)
ssi
