NIRMAL KANTI BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revisional application is directed against an order dated 15.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. XXII (7) of 2000 thereby rejecting the petitioners' application for discharge from the aforesaid case.

(2.) Present petitioners are made accused in the aforesaid session trial to meet a charge under sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners filed an application before the learned trial Judge praying for discharge from the said case. The contention of the petitioners before the learned trial Judge was that one Dr. Tapan Sarkar, attending physician of SSKM Hospital in his statement recorded by Police under section 161 Cr.PC stated that the victim made a dying statement before him that while she (the victim) was preparing tea she caught fire and her husband tried to rescue her. But after the postmortem was held, the P.M. doctor was of the opinion that the deceased might have been assaulted before burn injury and death, in his opinion, was due to shock of burn effect associated with assault which was ante-mortem in nature. Thereafter an opinion was sought for from Dr. Apurba Nandy, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic and State Medical College. The injuries were described by Dr. Nandy as Mechanical injuries and he further opined that the autopsy surgeon Dr. D.K. Basu might have confused some local patchy reaction of burn injuries as bruises.

(3.) The said application for discharge filed by the petitioners was rejected by the learned trial Judge by his order dated 19.2.2001. Challenging such order a revisional application was preferred by the petitioners before this Court being C.R.R. No. 479 of 2001, which was finally disposed of by this Court on 2.3.2001. As the date for framing of charge was fixed on 5.3.2001 before the learned trial Judge, the revisional application was disposed of directing the learned trial Judge to take all these facts into consideration at the time of framing of charge. Liberty was also granted to the petitioners to agitate all such points before the learned trial Judge at the time of framing of charge.