Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shristi Dhar Dey vs State Of West Bengal on 3 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
C.R.A. 629 of 2007
Shristi Dhar Dey
-Vs-
State of West Bengal
For the Appellant : Mr. Soumik Ganguly
Ms. Chandana Chakraborty
For the State : Mr. Tanmoy Kumar Ghosh
Mr. Arindam Sen
Heard on : 13.12.2022
Judgment on : 03.02.2023
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. :-
1. The appeal is preferred against the judgement and order
dated 27.06.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 6th
Court, Bankura in complaint case no. - 257 of 2006
acquitting the accused persons of the charge under
Section 323 and 379 of IPC.
2. The appellant filed a complaint under Section
323/325/379/506/34 against the respondent on
29.08.06 before the Court of Ld. CJM, Bankura.
Cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to the
Court of 6th JM, Bankura.
3. The complaint precisely stated the daughter of the
complainant to have purchased 0.16 acre of land under
dag no. 571 at Demurari, Gopinathpur, Mouja in the
district of Bankura. The land was demarcated with a
boundary wall. The respondent abused the complainant's
daughter and threatened her to dismantle the boundary
wall if his claim of Rs.20000 was not complied with. The
complainant and his daughter refused to pay the said
amount. Subsequently on 22.06.06 at about 4pm, the
complainant and his daughter found the boundary wall to
have been demolished. The daughter of the complainant
lodged a diary at Bankura P.S on 23.03.06 vide J.S.G.D.E
no. 1388/06 dated 23.06.06. The police did not take any
action on such written complaint. On 19th August, 2006,
the accused Ajoy Banerjee threatened to kill the
complainant in case the claimed amount as aforesaid was
not paid to him in the presence of Shri Saktipada Dey and
Dhiraju Garai at the land of the complainant's daughter.
On opposition, the said Ajoy Banerjee assaulted the
complainant and snatched a sum of Rs.700 from the
pocket of his shirt and fled from the place disregarding
the resistance of the other two persons. The complainant
went to the Bankura P.S along with the two aforesaid
persons where the concerned officer-in-charge advised
them to file a case at the Court. Accordingly, the
complainant filed the petition before the Court.
4. The Ld. Trial Court being satisfied that the complainant
made out a prima facie case on his examination, issued
summons accordingly.
5. The accused appeared before the Court on 11.01.2007.
Charge was framed under Section 323/379 of the IPC on
25.04.2007 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Soumik Ganguly for the appellant
submitted the Trial Court erred to appreciate the
depositions of PW1 and 2 which were sufficient to prove
the offence under 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court did not consider the scuffle to have taken
place between the appellant and opposite party no.1 who
snatched Rs.700 from the petitioner and considered the
initial deposition of PW1 and his evidence adduced before
the framing of charge to be at variance without
corroboration from PW2. PW2 was the eye witness to the
incident and his testimony should not have been
discredited. Accordingly, the order of acquittal should be
set aside and the opposite party no. 1 should be convicted
under Section 323/379 of Indian Penal Code.
7. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Tanmoy Ghosh for the State
submitted that the appellant failed to produce any
document relating to the written complaint lodged at the
Bankura Police Station. The evidence of the witnesses did
not corroborate with each other. Moreover, the amount of
money alleged to have been stolen was unspecific. The Ld.
Trial Judge rightly acquitted the opposite party no. 1 and
the appeal shall be dismissed.
8. PW1, the appellant did not cite the exact reason of
dispute with opposite party no.1. During his cross
examination PW1 stated to have heard the opposite party
no.1 having a tea stall. Opposite party no.1 was not the
adjacent owner of the land belonging to the daughter of
the complainant to initiate threat and assault. He further
stated "no diary was lodged in respect of this incident",
contrary to his statement in his complaint stating that his
daughter has lodged a written diary at P.S Bankura as
aforesaid. On 19.10.2006, the appellant stated that on
inquiry concerning the broken boundary wall, Ajoy
Banerjee entered into a heated conversation with him,
assaulted him and snatched away Rs.700 from his
pocket. He did not inform this matter to the police station
and came directly to the Court along with Saktipada Dey
and Raju Garai for relief. PW2 Saktipada Dey on
02.12.2006 stated of a dispute between Ajoy Banerjee and
the complainant, thereafter found Ajoy Banerjee to flee.
Later on he was told by the complainant that Ajoy took
away Rs.600/700 from his pocket. Thereafter, they went
to the Bankura P.S to inform the matter and police
advised them to go to Court. Raju Garai was not
examined. The theft of Rs.600/700 from the pocket of the
complainant is a hearsay on the part of PW2 being
informed by the complainant. There are inconsistencies
with regard to the date of incident as well prevarication in
the versions of PW1 and PW2 which did not corroborate
with each other.
9. In the opinion of this Court, The Ld. Trial Judge had
rightly acquitted the respondent/opposite party no. 1 and
accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
10. Lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be
sent down at once to the learned trial court for necessary
action.
11. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all
formalities.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)
