Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sirajul Islam @ Sirajul Rahman & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 12 June, 2019
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta CRR No. 3077 of 2018 Sirajul Islam @ Sirajul Rahman & Ors.
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sagar Saha,
Md. M. N. Chowdhury
For the State : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury,
Mr. Mainak Gupta
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Dipak Kumar Mookerjee Heard on : 12.06.2019 Judgment on: 12.06.2019 Jay Sengupta, J. :-
This is an application for transfer of trial of POCSO Case No. 53 of 2015: S.T. 13(08) of 2018 arising out of the Chopra Police Station Case No. 1539 of 2013 dated 27.12.2013 under Sections 363/366A/376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of 2 the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur to the Court of the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. At the time of initiation of the case, there was no Special Court under the POCSO Act at Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur. That is why, although the accused petitioners, the victim as well as the witnesses stayed at Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur, the case came to be heard before the learned Special Court at Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. But presently there is an existing designated Special Court under the POCSO Act at Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur. Therefore, for the mutual convenience of all, the trial should be transferred to the learned Special Court at Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur.
The learned advocate for the opposite party no. 2 submits as follows. The victim lady is presently residing at Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. Much after the incident and after she became a major, the opposite party no. 2 got married and is presently having a two years old child. Under such circumstances, it would be very difficult for her to travel away from her place of residence and depose before the trial court. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 files copy of the birth certificate of the victim's child, which is 3 placed on record. From there it appears that the victim is indeed a resident of Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State supports the contentions of the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 2. He submits that in the interest of justice the trial of the case should not be transferred away from the learned Special Court at Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur.
I have heard the submissions of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the revisional application.
It appears that dates of evidence have already been fixed by the learned Trial Court. The allegations are very serious. In a case involving atrocities on children, that too on a female child, the victim should not be made to run to distant places to depose. There are sufficient materials to indicate that the victim lady is a resident of Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur where the trial is pending. That apart, especially in a trial for offences under the POCSO Act, the learned Special Court ought to ensure that the victim has a fair and convenient opportunity to depose in a trial.
In the circumstances, I do not find that mutual convenience of parties require that the trial should be shifted from Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur to Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur.4
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the revisional application is dismissed. The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertakings.
(Jay Sengupta, J.) 5