MUNNI RAJAK Vs. SUMIT BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Order of acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, First Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 1997 thereby absolving the accused opposite party in CRR No. 1577 of 1999 has given rise to these two Revisional Applications. While the petitioner, in CRR No. 1577 of 1999, who was the victim girl, moved this Application being aggrieved with the Order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused opposite party. The petitioner in CRR No. 1651 of 1999 who was the scribe of the FIR, was examined as P.W.3 during the trial for expunction of certain remarks made against him in the body of the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge.

(2.) Since both the matters were heard together, this common judgment will dispose of both the Revisional Applications.

(3.) Shri De, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in both the Revisional Applications has questioned the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused opposite party on several grounds. He has firstly submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs. 1, 4 and 5 in their proper perspective. The Order of acquittal, according to Shri De, was a result of total misconception of the evidence and legal position. He has submitted that the evidence was sufficient for the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He also referred to the evidence of PWs. 1, 5 and 4 in great details and prayed for setting aside the order of acquittal as it has occasioned in a failure of justice. He further submitted that the learned trial judge while coming to his conclusion had stressed too much reliance on the statement of PW.1, recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext. 5) which was not a substantive piece of evidence; moreover, there was a subsequent prayer for recording of a fresh statement which was turned down by the learned trial Judge. Shri De referred to the order dated 08.7.96 passed by the learned trial Judge in this regard. He also submitted that the surrounding circumstances and the evidence of PW.1 read in conjunction with those of PWs. 4 and 5 (her Parents) were sufficient to prove the charge against the accused.