SUBRATA SARKAR; MADAN DEB Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur in Sessions Trial Case No. 6(NT/KMP) of 2011 rejecting the application filed by the accused for reexamining 3 (three) witnesses i.e. P.Ws 12, 13 and 14.

(2.) As far as P.W. 12 is concerned, he is the doctor, who conducted the ossification test and gave an opinion as to the age of the prosecutrix. I have gone through the statement and I find that no further cross-examination is necessary and therefore, the prayer with regard to recalling this witness is rejected.

(3.) As far as P.Ws 13 and 14 are concerned, P.W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. Sri Chakraborty, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the statements of various witnesses where they have confronted with their previous statements recorded either under Sections 154, 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the counsel, who has earlier conducted the case though has confronted the witnesses with the earlier statement, but when the Investigating Officer appeared in the witness box he did not get those statements proved from the said Investigating Officer. With regard to P.W. 14, who is the Medical expert, the submission of Mr. Chakraborty is that after examining the prosecutrix, the doctor had opined that he could give his final opinion as to whether the prosecutrix had been raped or not only after perusing the forensic/serological report. It is submitted that though the report is on record, the doctor has not given any final opinion.