Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Parbati Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 July, 2023
ML. Sl. No.80
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth
C.R.A. 702 of 2013
Parbati Das
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Appellant : Mr. Manas Kumar Das
Mr. Aritra Kumar Thokdar
For the respondent : Mr. Robiul Islam
No.2 Mr. Raju Mondal
Mr. Samimul Bari
For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherji, ld. P.P.
Mr. Aniket Mitra
Heard on : 31.07.2023
Judgment on : 31.07.2023
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-
1. Appellant has assailed judgment and order dated 17.05.2013 passed
by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st
Court, Malda in Sessions Case No. 205 of 2012 acquitting the
respondent no.2 herein from the charge under Sections 417/376 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. Gist of the accusation against the respondent no.2-accused is to the
effect that he was a practicing doctor. Appellant was employed in his
chamber. On the false representation that he was a bachelor and
would marry the appellant, the respondent no.2-accused cohabited
with her on a number of times. Subsequently, appellant came to
know that the respondent no.2-accused is a married man and has a
son.
3. Under such circumstances, she lodged written complaint resulting in
registration of English Bazar Police Station Case No.614 of 2011
dated 23.09.2011 under Sections 417/376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Pursuant to investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges were
framed under Sections 417/376 IPC against the respondent no.2-
accused. During trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses including
the appellant as PW1.
4. Upon analysis of the evidence on record particularly that of PW1, the
trial Judge noted that the appellant herself was a married lady and in
this backdrop, allegation of being misled on the ground that the
respondent no.2-accused was a bachelor and would marry her is
patently absurd.
5. Mr. Manas Kumar Das, learned Advocate for the appellant submits
respondent no.2-accused had represented himself as a bachelor and
dishonestly cohabited with her.
6. Learned Advocate for the respondent no.2-accused disputes such
submission.
7. Learned Advocate for the State also disputes such submission.
8. We have considered the evidence on record in the light of the
aforesaid submissions by the parties.
9. PW1 is the appellant and de-facto complainant in the instant case. In
chief, she deposed she was working in the chamber of Dr. Ashok
Prasad Gupta, the respondent no.2 herein. Dr. Gupta portrayed
himself as a bachelor and on the false promise of marriage, cohabited
with her. But in cross-examination, she admitted she is already
married to one Dipak Das.
10. That apart, PW10 viz. Seema Gupta (wife of Dr. Ashok Prasad
Gupta) was tendered on behalf of the prosecution. In cross-
examination, she stated she used to regularly visit her husband's
chamber with her son. She had met the appellant on a number of
times.
11. Evidence of PW10 renders the version of the appellant that she
was unaware of the marital status of the respondent no.2-accused
herein improbable. In this backdrop, finding of the trial Judge cannot
be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. When
the finding of the trial court is a reasonable one and founded on
evidence on record, the appellate court would be loath to overturn the
said finding and reverse an order of acquittal.
12. For the abovementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the
appeal.
13. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
14. Lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent
down at once to the learned trial Court for necessary action.
15. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the
parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.
16. I agree.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
akd
