Crl.Rev.P./478/2018
2021 Latest Caselaw 767 Gua

                                                                              Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010212402018




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 478/2018


      SMT RUPASHREE DAS, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
      W/O LATE RAJESH DAS,
      VILLAGE - TULAGRAM PT-II, P.O. & P.S.- SONAI,
      DISTRICT-CACHAR, ASSAM
                                                                          ...... PETITIONER.
                           -Versus-
    1. SRI SHANKA SEKHAR DAS @ SITU DAS
       S/O LATE SRIKANTA DAS
       VILLAGE-NETAJI PALLY, WARD NO. 4, SONAI TOWN,
       P.O & P.S.-SONAI, DISTRICT-CACHAR, PIN-788119, ASSAM.
    2. SRI SOURAB DAS
       S/O SRI SHANKA SEKHAR DAS,
       VILLAGE-NETAJI PALLY, WARD NO. 4, SONAI TOWN,
       P.O & P.S.-SONAI, DISTRICT-CACHAR, PIN-788119, ASSAM.
                                                                         ...... RESPONDENTS.

   Advocate appeared for the petitioners          : Mr I Alam.


   Advocates appeared for the respondent           : Mr B M Choudhury.


                                               BEFORE
                      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN


Date of Hearing                            : 03.03.2021


Date of Judgment                           : 03.03.2021
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/4




                              JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr I Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr B M Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The revision is preferred against the order dated 02.05.2018, passed by the learned JMFC, Cachar, Silchar, in CR Case No. 494/2017, whereby the learned Court has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the CrPC, on the ground that there was no prima facie case against the accused/respondents herein.

3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was a reputed electrician in the locality, specially expertised in installation of inverters etc. On the request of Sri Shanka Sekhar Das/respondent No. 1, at about 09:00 am, her husband went to his newly constructed house to install an inverter. The deceased husband of the petitioner did not contact her and at about 4:00 -4:30 pm, the petitioner came to know that her husband was electrocuted and she was asked to reach Sonai Hospital as her husband was taken to the hospital by the family members of the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner along with her father-in-law, mother- in-law and other relative, went to the Sonai Hospital, but the respondent No. 1 prevented all the family members of the petitioner to see her husband and he also assured the petitioner and her family members not to be worried as he has taken the responsibility to cure her husband and he further requested her not to lodge any FIR against them. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know from her father-in-law that her husband was taken to Silchar Medical College and Hospital for Post-Mortem and on the next morning respondent No. 1 along with other persons came to the house of the petitioner and handed over the dead body of her husband, Late Rajesh Kumar Das, along with the PM Report, wherein the cause of death was reflected as electrocution. On the very day, respondent No. 1 paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to her father-in-law and again requested her not to lodge any FIR against them and assured her that he would provide her financial assistance of Rs. 25,00,000/- and other assistance also and he being the Head Assistant at Page No.# 3/4

the Circle Office, Sonai, Cachar, would try and help the petitioner to get a job in that office.

4. Further, it is contended by the petitioner that after few days of the occurrence, she came to know that actually, when her deceased husband was working in the house of respondent No. 1, he started his inverter installation works by switching off the main line, but suddenly, respondent No. 2 most negligently switched on the main switch of the electric line and as a result of which, the deceased husband of the petitioner got electrocuted. Moreover, respondent No. 1 always tried to conceal the true fact and requested the petitioner not to lodge any FIR against them and also promised to provide financial help to her, but totally failed. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed the complaint case before the JMFC, Cachar and the same was registered as CR Case No. 494/2017, under Sections 120 B, 304 (A), 506 IPC. The petitioner examined herself and three other witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, but however the learned Magistrate, without applying its judicial mind and in a most illegal manner dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the CrPC, without giving any cogent reasons and grounds. Being highly aggrieved with the order so passed, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order, contending that the dismissal order is bereft of adequate reasons, whereas the petitioner has examined other witnesses under Section 202 CrPC. Such a dismissal without discussing the merit of the witnesses, has occasioned failure of justice to the complainant/petitioner, herein. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint, there being no supporting evidence, to the case of the complainant/petitioner.

6. I have carefully gone through the LCR and the evidence adduced by the petitioner under Section 202 CrPC.

7. The petitioner, herein, examined herself as well as other three witnesses in support of the case. It is alleged in her complaint petition as well as in her statement under Section 200 CrPC that, while her husband was working in the house of the accused person, to install an Page No.# 4/4

inverter, by switching off the main line, but the accused No. 2, who was present along with her husband, negligently switched on the electric line, as a result of which her husband died, due to electrocution. A case of negligence is depicted from her statement, that due to lack of diligence and care on the part of the accused No. 2, the person got electrocuted and died, although it is not a case of conspiracy. The fact that husband of the petitioner was found lying electrocuted in the house of the accused and subsequently his death has also been supported by the other witnesses. But the other witnesses were not aware about the cause of the death. In the circumstances, the case of the petitioner cannot be simply discarded for lack of supporting evidence. Because at the initial stage of taking cognizance, only factor to be considered is about a prima facie case and requirement of all supporting witnesses can be looked into, at the subsequent stage of the trial. In the present case, there is otherwise supporting witness that the husband of the petitioner died in the house of the accused persons because of electrocution, although they were not aware about the cause of his death. In the facts and circumstances of the case, rejection of the statement of the complainant in entirety, appears to be not proper. It is to be noted that although the accused No. 1, Situ Das has been impleaded in the complaint, but the witnesses indicated that he was not present at the time of occurrence, so it negated his involvement in the incident.

8. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is required to be interfered into. Accordingly, the order of dismissal dated 02.05.2018, passed by the learned JMFC, Cachar, Silchar, in CR Case No. 494/2017, is hereby quashed and set aside and the learned trial Court is hereby directed to proceed with and dispose the complaint in accordance with law.

9. The revision petition is allowed. Return the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant