PARVATI ADHIKARI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.K. Mazumder, J-The instant Criminal revisional application under sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of the Convict-Petitioner Smt. Parvati Adhikari and this is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.4.91 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, second Court, Nadia in Criminal Appeal No. 25/90 affirming the order of conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and of payment of a fine of Rs. 1200/- in default to suffer further R.I for two months as passed by the learned SDJM, Ranaghat in G.R. Case No. 893 of 1985 (T.R. No. 299 of 1987) on 30.8.90.

(2.) The case of the Convict-Petitioner Smt. Parvati Adhikari was in brief that on 22.11.85 the defacto-complainant informant Smt. Maya Ghosh lodged a written complaint against the petitioner and two others alleging inter alia that her son Tarak aged about 18 years, who was born dumb and lame, was taken to the Petitioner for his medical treatment and cure by the petitioner as the defacto-complainant-informant came to know from the people of the locality that the Petitioner was a 'Kalisadhika' and had super-natural powers to cure any ailing person. In the written complaint it was also alleged by the complainant Smt. Maya Ghosh that on that date itself the petitioner being assisted by her brother Netai and sister Kalpana started the medical treatment of her son Tarak. For the purpose of the treatment a 'Dhunuchi' was lit and incense powder was put in that burning 'Dhunuchi', which emited dense smoke. It was also alleged in the complaint that thereafter the petitioner sat on the chest of Tarak for about four hours and this made Tarak senseless and he died soon thereafter. This incident gave rise to Ranaghat P.S. Case No 42 dated 23.11.85 under section 304A/34 of the IPC (GR Case No. 893 of 1985/T.R. No. 299 of 1987). After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and two others under section 304A/34 of the IPC. After a full-dressed trial the learned SDJM, Ranaghat held the Petitioner and two others to be guilty of the offence punishable under section 304A/34 IPC and sentenced the Petitioner to suffer R.I for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1200/- in default to suffer further R.I for two months for committing an offence under section 304A/34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1990 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Nadia for redressal of her grievances. In appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge found the petitioner's brother and sister to be not guilty but the said Court found the petitioner to be guilty in respect of the offence under section 304A/34 IPC and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence and directed that the Petitioner shall suffer R.I for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1200/- in default to suffer R.I. for further two months for committing the offence under section 304A/34 IPC as held by the learned trial Court. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the Petitioner has moved this forum by way of filing the instant Criminal revisional application for redressal of her grievances.

(3.) I have had the opportunity of hearing learned counsels for both the parties in the matter at length.