LIL MOHAN SHIL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. has questioned the order of acquittal dated 28.02.2007 delivered in G.R. case No.39/1997 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala. This revision has been filed before the legislative change made by way of engrafting proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. creating the right of the victim to appeal against the order of acquittal.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the informant at whose instance Sidhai P.S. case No.3/97 was registered and taken up for investigation. The petitioner had filed the First Information Report to the Officer -in -Charge Sidhai Police Station disclosing inhuman physical torture on his son namely, Rana Shil (PW -15). The petitioner (PW -1) in his written information has stated that he had lodged information to the East Agartala Police Station on 24.09.1996 reporting that one Smt. Dipa Paul had kidnapped his minor son but the police did not take any action. On 24.09.1996, his son was arrested by the Sidhai Police Station. After arrest, his son was brutally assaulted by two police officers namely, Shyma Prasad Biswas and Narancy Ch. Choudhury "keeping him in police lockup with lathi" and "by kicks and blows". As a result, his son received grievious injuries on his body. His right arm sustained fracture. His son was taken to Mohanpur Primary Health Centre in the evening of 24.09.1996. Later on, he was referred to the G.B.P. hospital. The attending Doctors in the G.B.P hospital had informed PW -1 that 'there are fracture in the right and crack in collarbone'. He had learnt about the assault in detail from his son (PW -15). As he was engaged in attending his son he could not file the information on 24.09.1996 as PW -1 has explained in the F.I.R. However, he had filed the information on 27.09.1996 with a copy to the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala. It is apparent from the records that PW -1 had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of mandamus for registering the said F.I.R. (Exbt.1) being Civil Rule No.5 of 1996. By an interim order dated 08.01.1997, the then Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench had directed the Officer -in -Charge to start the investigation after registering the case inasmuch as in the counter affidavit, the respondent No.1, the Officer -in -Charge of the Sidhai Police Station had admitted his mistake by stating that since one of the officers, accused in that case was superior in rank, he was confused whether he had the authority to register a case against a superior officer in view of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. According to him, on proper legal advise, he had realized that provisions of Section 197 cannot create a legal bar. Be that as it may, on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons namely, Shyama Prasad Biswas, Inspector of Police and Narayan Ch. Choudhury, Sub Inspector of police of that Police Station.

(3.) IN order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has adduced as many as 22(twenty two) witnesses including Dr. Pandab Ch. Paul (PW -18) and Dr. Yudhisthir Das (PW -19), the victim Rana Shil (PW -15) and Smt. Dipa Paul (PW -16) who was alleged of kidnapping PW -15 but who later married PW -15. From the prosecution, 4(four) documents Exbt. 1 to Exbt. 4 have been introduced in the evidence. After examining the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala by the judgment and order dated 28.02.2007 acquitted them holding that two different versions, equally strong, have emerged in the evidence. The said judgment and order delivered in case No. G.R. 39 of 1997 is under challenge in this revision petition.