Dhubabrata Ray @ Praloy Roy vs The State Of West Bengal
2022 Latest Caselaw 4825 Cal

Item No. 1




                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                          APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
               And
The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay


                              C.R.A. 695 of 2018

                         Dhubabrata Ray @ Praloy Roy
                                     -Vs-
                           The State of West Bengal


For the Appellant        :     Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya, Adv.
                               Mr. Subhrojyoti Ghosal, Adv.

Judgment on              :     27.07.2022


Joymalya Bagchi, J.:-

         Appeal is directed against judgment and order of acquittal dated

29.06.2018

passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Fast Track, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No.197 of 2009.

Prosecution case levelled against the opposite parties is to the

effect that on 08.03.2008 at 10.30 P.M. Jolly Bhowmick wife of opposite

party No.2 committed suicide. It was alleged that she was subjected to

mental and physical torture by her husband opposite party No.2 who had

illicit association with opposite party No.6 herein. On the written

complaint of the appellant (PW.1) Kotwali P.S. Case No. 392/2008 dated

09.03.2008 was registered. In conclusion of investigation charge-sheet

was filed under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code against the

opposite parties.

Charges were framed under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal

Code against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 and under Section 306

against the opposite party No. 6. On analysis of the evidence on record,

the trial judge had acquitted the opposite party No.2 to 4 of all the

charges leveled against them.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he does

not wish to proceed with the matter. Notwithstanding the aforesaid

submission, as the appeal has been admitted we have examined evidence

on record.

Appellant is the brother of the deceased and was examined as

PW.1. PW.2 and PW.4 are the mother and brother of the deceased while

PW.13 is her daughter. PWs. 3,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11 & 21 are the

neighbours of the couple. PW.22 is the friend of the deceased. PWs.17 and

18 are the cousin of the deceased. PW.12 is a medical officer who

recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. PW.19 also recorded her

dying declaration.

On an analysis of the aforesaid witnesses, it appears two

statements of the deceased were recorded by PWs. 11 and 19 namely Ext.

6 and Ext. 11. The trial court found there were irregularities in the

recording of the aforesaid dying declarations and they were at variance to

one another. In the first dying declaration Ext.11 the victim had merely

referred to family disturbance but in the subsequent dying declaration

she stated her husband had extra marital affair with another women.

In view of the aforesaid contradictions, the trial court did not

believe the dying declarations.

The aforesaid findings of the trial court cannot be said to be wholly

perverse and as the appellant is unwilling to proceed with the appeal, we

dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellant.

Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be

forthwith sent down to the trial court at once.

Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be

made available to the appellant upon completion of all formalities.

I agree.

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

cm