Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Narayan Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 March, 2014
Author: Tarun Kumar Gupta
Bench: Tarun Kumar Gupta
1
534.
04.03.2014
F.B. CRR No. 2430 of 2013 Narayan Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
In the matter of : An application under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ms. Minoti Gomes, Mr. Kausik Biswas ..... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Amartya Ghosh ..... For the State.
The de facto complainant of the Sessions Case No. 109 of 2013, now pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Serampore, Hooghly has prayed for transfer of the case from said Court to any other competent Court at Howrah on the grounds stated in the application.
It is the case of the petitioner/de facto complainant that his daughter Rakhi was married with accused Debdulal Chakraborty and that on account of unnatural death of his daughter with burn injuries, he lodged a specific complaint against the accused persons under Sections 498A/326/302/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the further case that after investigation police submitted a charge sheet against opposite party nos. 2 to 6 under Sections 2 498A/326/302/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that in connection with said case whenever he had been to Serampore, he was threatened by the accused persons for which he had to lodge several General Diaries at Police Station. It is his further case that the opposite party-accused persons often threatened him over phone and tried to create a panic so that he or his family members do not go to Serampore in connection with this case, though he, his wife and son were primary witnesses in said Sessions case.
It appears that in spite of service of notice none appeared for the opposite party-accused persons.
Learned advocate, Mr. Ghosh appears for the opposite party/State and submits that in the charge sheet there are several local witnesses and that if the Sessions case is transferred from Serampore Court to any Court at Howrah then those local witnesses may suffer unnecessary harassment. He also submits that the accused persons being residents of Serampore and Hooghly, the case should have been tried in the Serampore Court as accused persons are entitled to have their trial in a Court nearest to their residents.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates of the parties. Perused the materials lying in the record. It is true that the accused persons are entitled to have the trial of their case in a Court nearest to their house. It is also true that the de facto complainant and other important witnesses should get necessary protection so that they can depose fearlessly in the trial Court during trial. It is also true 3 that some of the private witnesses were residents of Serampore where the case is presently lying.
Now in order to strike a balance between the safety of the de facto complainant and her relations in one hand and the right of the accused persons to have the trial in a Court nearest to their residents, I am of the opinion that the justice will be sub-served if this application is disposed of with the following directions:
O.C., Serampore Police Station will take all necessary steps for giving protection of the petitioner/de facto complainant Narayan Chakraborty and his relations viz. Mithu Chakraborty and Rupak Chakraborty while they will go to the Serampore Court to depose in connection with pending Sessions case. Said protection will start from the time when said petitioner and his two witnesses named above leave their house at Bally for going to Serampore and will continue till they return to their residents at Bally after giving necessary evidence in the trial Court. For the purpose of giving said protection O.C., Serampore Police Station is at liberty to take necessary assistance from O.C., Bally Police Station also. It is needless to say that said protection should be given on all dates of evidence of the petitioners and his two witnesses in the trial Court.
Opposite party/State is required to take necessary steps regarding giving of protection through their police agency as per rule.
It will be highly appreciated if learned trial Court is able to dispose of trial of the Sessions case within one year from the date of communication of this order.4
The revisional application stands disposes of accordingly.
Let photostat copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocate appearing for the State on usual undertaking.
Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent Photostat certified copy of this order to the petitioner, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
( Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. )