SEULI DEY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arindam Lodh Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defacto complainant Seuli Dey. Also heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents as well as Mr. Samrat Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.

(2.) This is an appeal preferred by the defacto-complainant Smt. Seuli Dey against the judgment dated 12.03.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Khowai Judicial District in Case No. PRC (WP) 88 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has acquitted the private respondents namely, Sri Bimal Dutta, Sri Nepal Paul, Sri Jagadish Dey and Sri Amit Modak alias Sourab. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the defacto-complainant at the very outset of his submission contends that there were some lacunae in conducting the case. However, I proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant who is the appellant herein.

(3.) Briefly stated, the defacto-complainant is the victim of the instant case. She suffered injuries which are established by the Doctor. Her husband also suffered injuries which are also established by the Doctors. The incident of alleged assault was occurred at 11 am at broad daylight in a place where presence of many independent witnesses were naturally expected. The victim and her husband stated that the private respondents had assaulted them. But, though there are independent witnesses like PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 they did not support the versions of both the victims. PW- 4 only stated that he saw his aunt and uncle to bleed. I have perused the evidence of the victim who deposed as PW-1. It is found that the statements she made in her examination-in-chief were not found in her previous statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC by the investigating officer. In her previous statements she did not name the private respondents who were the accused of the case. To reverse the finding of acquittal, the complainant is to show that the learned trial court has failed to read and construe the cogent evidence let in by the prosecution based on which the trial court could return a finding of guilt.