Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Chandi Puliya vs The State Of West Bengal on 27 June, 2022
27.06.2022
CRR 1328 of 2022
Chandi Puliya
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal
For the petitioner: Mr. Arindam Jana, Adv.,
Mr. Soumajit Chatterjee, Adv.,
Mr. S. Chakraborty, Adv.,
Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee, Adv.
An order dated 4th March, 2022 passed by the
learned Special Court, West Bengal (MP & MLA case),
Bidhannagar at North 24 Parganas in Special Case No.120
of 2018 arising out of GR Case No.1364 of 2011
corresponding to Anandapur Police Station Case No. 36 of
2011 dated 6th June, 2011 under Sections 147/148/
149/448/326/307 /302/506/201/120B of the IPC read
with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act is under challenge in
the instant criminal revision.
The impugned order dated 4th March, 2022 passed
by the Trial Judge on an application filed by the petitioner
herein under Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C along with an
application under Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Anandapur Police Station Case No.36 of 2011 was
registered on 6th June, 2011 on the basis of a complaint
lodged by one Shyamal Acharya on the allegation that his
2
father Ajay Acharya and some other persons being the
followers of a particular political party were ousted from
their village by the rival political party. There was a
meeting to maintain peace and law and order. In the
locality in the year 2002 and pursuant to the decision of
the meeting the father of the defacto complainant and
others return to their house at village Raniorh on 22nd
September, 2002. Then the accused person belonging to
the rival political party attacked them with deadly
weapons including fire arms and committed murder of
seven persons. The body of the father of the complainant
was buried on the ground at village Piashala. The family
members of the said Ajay Acharya did not get any trace of
him. On 26th September, 2002 a complaint was registered
at Kespur Police Station. On the basis of which Kespur
Police Station Case No.61 of 2002 was registered against
the accused persons including the petitioner under
Sections 148/149/448/307/323/364/506 of the IPC and
Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. In the said case Police
submitted charge-sheet on 15th February, 2005 under
Sections 148/149/448/364/506 of the IPC against the
accused persons including the petitioner. After trial the
petitioner and six other accused persons were acquitted
under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court,
Paschim Medinipur by a judgment dated 21st May, 2010.
3
Subsequently on 4th June, 2011 the defacto
complainant came to know that some human skeletons
were found after digging earth near Malikdanga under
Police Station Garbeta. The defacato complainant rushed
to the spot and indentified one of the said skeletons as
that of his father seeing his wearing apparels. He lodged a
complaint against the accused persons under Sections
147/148/149/341
/367/449/326/307/302/201/109/11
4/115/117/120B of the IPC. After investigation Police
submitted charge-sheet in Anandapur Police Station Case
No.36 of 2011 against 46 accused persons including the
present petitioner.
It is contended by the petitioner that he has already
been tried and acquitted in respect of the offence which
was allegedly committed on 26th September, 2002. After
trial the trial court passed an order of acquittal. There was
no appeal against the said order of acquittal passed in
favour of the petitioner and the order reached its finality.
In Anandapur Police Station Case No.36 of 2011 petitioner
has been charged under the same offence, he cannot be
tried for the same offence under Section 300 of the Cr.P.C.
So he filed a petition under Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C
and Section 227 of the Cr.P.C before the Trial Court. The
Trial Court rejected the said application.
Being aggrieved the petitioner has lodged the instant
complaint.
I have heard Mr. Jana learned Advocate for the
petitioner perused the impugned order and other
materials on record. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is based on the principle that no man's life or
liberty shall be put twice in jeopardy for the same offence
on the same set of facts. The principles of autrefois acquit
and autrefois convict are crystallized in Section 300 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision applies when a
person is tried again on the same offence or on same facts
for any other offence under conditions attracting Section
221 of the Code. The protection afforded by these words
extents two different offences only when they are based on
same facts and fall within Section 221. Section 221 of the
Code deals with the provision of framing of charge where it
is doubtful of the offence has been committed. It is thus:
"221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been
committed- (1) If a single act or series of acts is of
such a nature that it is doubtful which of several
offences the facts which can be proved will
constitute, the accused may be charged with having
committed all or any of such offences, and any
number of such charges may be tried at once; or he
may be charged in the alternative with having
committed some one of the said offences.
(2) If, in such a case the accused is charged with one
offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed
a different offence for which he might have been
charged under the provisions of sub- section (1), he
may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to
have committed, although he was not charged with
it."
Coming to the instant case it appears that the
accused was acquitted in respect of offence under Sections
148/149/307/323/364/506 of the IPC in previously
instituted suit. Thus the allegations against the accused
he along with other accused persons formed unlawful
assembly with deadly weapons, committed criminal
trespass caused hurt and admitted to commit murder and
also abducted some persons including father of the
defacto complainant for the purpose of murder. In the
subsequent case being Anandapur Police Station Case
No.36 of 2011, charge-sheet has been submitted against
the accused and other under Section 302 of the IPC on the
allegation that he along with other accused persons
committed murder of Ajay Acharya. Charge of murder and
charge of abduction for the purpose of murder are
completely and distinctly different penal offences. The
accused cannot claim to be discharged from Special Case
No.120 of 2018 on the ground that he was acquitted in
Keshpur Police Station Case No.61 of 200.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any
merit in the instant criminal revision and accordingly this
revision is summarily dismissed.
There shall however no order as to costs.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
