Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mumtaz Begum @ Maina & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 13 November, 2014
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
Form No. J(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
C.R.R. 2978 of 2013
Mumtaz Begum @ Maina & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Opposite Party no. 2 : Mr. R. S. Chatterjee
For the State : Mr. Amarta Ghose
Heard on : 13th November, 2014
Judgement on : 13th November, 2014
Joymalya Bagchi, J.: Order dated 6th August, 2013 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court Hooghly in S.T. 12/2013 under Sections
376/417/120B of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed.
The petitioner is facing trial in the instant case on the accusation of having committed offence punishable under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the petitioner is that the victim who is a deaf and dumb girl complained of feeling ill to her mother namely Alekjan Bibi who is the defacto complainant of the instant case. Upon taking the victim to hospital, it was found that the victim was pregnant and on enquiry the victim indicated that the petitioner was responsible for her pregnancy. It was alleged that the petitioner on the false promise of marrying the victim had raped the victim girl. Under such circumstances, the family members of the victim went to the house of the petitioner for settlement. They flatly refused the incident resulting in the registration of first information report. In course of trial, the prosecution prayed from examination under Section 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the victim girl, the doctor who examined the victim, the judicial magistrate who had recorded her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Judicial Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade in the instant case as they have not been listed as witnesses in the charge sheet. On the other hand, the petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner to give an opportunity to engage an interpreter in order to appreciate the evidence of the deaf and dumb girl. In view of the fact that the examination of the aforesaid witnesses as sought for a by the prosecution was essential for a just decision of the case, prayer of the prosecution was allowed by the impugned order. By the self-same order prayer to engage an interpreter to appreciate the evidence of the deaf and dumb girl as made by the petitioner was also allowed.
The aforesaid order has been assailed in the revision petition. Nobody appears for the petitioner.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 opposes the petition.
Mr. Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the State supports the submission of Mr. Chatterjee.
Having considered the impugned order, I am of the view that examination of the witnesses as sought for by the prosecution is most essential for a just decision of the case. It is matter of grave concern as to how such witnesses were not mentioned in the charge sheet. Interference in the order impugned on the score that it permits examination of the said witnesses is, therefore, not called for..
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the revisional application and the same is rejected.
The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial following the mandate contained in the proviso of sub-section (1) Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and conclude the same in the light of the aforesaid provision.
Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) jb.