Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sukumar Goswami vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 25 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Bibhas Ranjan De
C.R.R. 3838 of 2015
With
CRAN 2 of 2016 (Old No: CRAN 4175 of 2016)
CRAN 3 of 2017 (Old No. CRAN 67 of 2017)
Sukumar Goswami
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu De, Adv.
Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta, Adv.
Mr. Monami Mukherjee, Adv.
For the opposite party No.2 : Mr. Prabir Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Pinak Mitra, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Prasum Kumar Dutta, APP
Mr. Pravas Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. M.F.A Begg, Adv.
Heard on : July 17, 2023
Judgment on : July 25, 2023
2
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
1. The Judgement dated 04.09.2015 passed in Criminal
Appeal no. 4 of 2012 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions
Judge, Paschim Medinipur is challenged in this revision
application.
2. By the impugned judgement Ld. Additional Sessions Judge,
passed an order remanding back to the Ld. Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, in connection with GR Case no.
260 of 1995 setting aside the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 06.01.2012 passed by Ld. Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal with a direction to ensure the
attendance and examination of Investigation Officer and
Medical Officer.
3. One application under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) was
filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 16.09.1995 for an
alleged incident of assault by the petitioner. On receipt of
that complaint Chandrakoknal Police Station case no.
83/95 dated 17.10.1995 under Section 323/354/379 of the
Indian Penal Code was started against the accused
including the petitioner and charge sheet was submitted
after investigation and accused were discharged from the
case on 16.09.1999. At the instance of opposite party no. 2
one revision application was filed before the Ld. Sessions
Judge, being Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2002 and said
revision application was rejected by the Ld. Sessions Judge,
on 29.11.2007. Being aggrieved opposite party no. 2 again
preferred revisional application before this Hon'ble High
Court against order dated 29.11.2007 and this Court
remanded back on 08.04.2009 for retrial. After trial Ld.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused by
the judgement and order dated 06.01.2012. Being aggrieved
de facto complainant (op no. 2) filed an appeal before the Ld.
Sessions Judge assailing the judgement and order of
acquittal dated 06.01.2012. Thereafter, Ld. Sessions Judge,
by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.09.2015
remanded back the matter to the Ld. Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal for examinational of
Investigation Officer and doctor.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment
and order dated 04.09.2012 the instance revision
application has been preferred.
5. Ld. Advocate, Mr. Himanshu De, appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has drawn my attention to the evidence of
witnesses (PW1 to 6) and submitted that evidence of injured
(PW1) was not corroborated by any of the so called eye
witness. He has further submitted that incident alleged in
this case took place on 09.09.1995 but the complaint 156(3)
was filed on 16.09.1995 and jurisdictional police station
started case on 17.10.1995, such delay, According to Mr. De
is fatal to the prosecution.
6. Mr. De, in support of his contention relied on a cases of
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. V. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. reported in (1998) 1 SCC
692, Munna Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
(2023) SCC Online SC 80, Abdul Rehmn Antulay Vs. R.S.
Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225, Raj Kumar Singh @
Raju @ Batya Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in
(2013) 5 SCC 722, Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab
reported in (2009) 9 SCC 719, Mahendra Singh and Ors.
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 7 SCC
157 & Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P. reported in (1973) 2
SCC 808.
7. Ld. Advocate, Prabir Mitra, appearing on behalf of the
opposite party no. 2 has submitted that even an evidence of
single witness, if believable, can sustain conviction. It has
been further submitted that evidence of Investigating Officer
and doctor was very much vital while witnesses were
examined in terms of statement recorded by the
Investigation Officer under Section 161 of the CrPC. That
apart, doctor examined the injured after the incident.
8. Ld. Advocate, Mr. Pravas Bhattacharya, has submitted that
delay was caused in this case due to filing of successive
revision application by the Petitioner. Mr. Bhattacharya
supported the judgment and order dated 04.09.2015 passed
by the Ld. Additional Session Judge, Pachim Medinipur.
9. Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be equated
with appellate jurisdiction in its revisional jurisdiction. The
High Court can examine the records of any proceedings for
satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of
any finding, sentence or order. Therefore, High Court in
exercising revisional jurisdiction can only appreciate as to
any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.
10. Here in this case, Ld. Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate transferred the case to his own file only on
03.07.2009 fixing 11.08.2009 for appearance on 06.08.2011
Ld. Magistrate examined the accused under Section 251 of
the CrPC and fixed on 01.09.2011 for evidence. Summons
were issued time to time and examined 6 witnesses till
28.12.2011 and on that day Ld. Magistrate fixed a date
(06.01.2012) for evidence of Investigation Officer in default
examination of accused under Section 313 CrPC and issued
summons accordingly. On 06.01.2012 Ld. Magistrate closed
the evidence and after examining accused under Section
313 of the CrPC delivered judgment and order of acquittal.
11. Ld. Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment found
it necessary for examination of Investigation Officer and
doctor for proper disposal of the case.
12. Ld. Judge, returned his finding to the effect that Ld.
Magistrate ought to have taken steps to secure attendance
of Investigation Officer before the Court instead of closing
evidence on 06.01.2012 fixing evidence of Investigation
Officer.
13. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Abdul Rehmn
Antulay (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with quashing of
the proceeding.
14. In Munna Lal (supra) dealt with non-examination of
Investigation Officer in separate prospective unlike our case.
15. In Raj Kumar Singh (supra) dealt with purpose of
examination of accused.
16. Sing & Narendra Sing (supra) dealt with
appreciation and creditability of witness.
17. In Kaliram (supra) burden of proof, presumption and
appreciation of evidence were dealt with.
18. In our case, Ld. Judicial Magistrate, appreciated the
evidence of witness examined prior to 28.12.2011 only when
Investigation Officer was summoned by the Court. In the
case, Ld. Magistrate did not take any steps to secure
attendance of Investigating Officer and Medical Officer
before the court for proper appreciation of entire evidence
before coming to final verdict. In this case, Ld. Magistrate
issued summon to Investigating Officer on 28.12.2011
asking him to appear on 06.01.2012 but instead of passing
order to secure his attendance Ld. Magistrate closed the
evidence, examined accused under Section 313 of the CrPC
and delivered judgment on the same day i.e. on 06.01.2012.
19. For the reasons, I am unable to find out either any
illegality or impropriety to interfere with the impugned
judgment.
20. Thus, the revision application being no.CRR 3838 of
2015 Stands dismissed.
21. Pending applications also stands disposed of.
22. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all
requisite formalities.
[BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.]
