SUDIP MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present applications under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against order dtd. 1/10/2019 passed by Judge, Special Court, Bankura in special case No. 06 of 2019, Special Session Trial No. 01(10) 19 arising out of GR Case no. 156 of 2019 in connection with Onda Police Station Case No. 119/19 dtd. 4/6/2019 under Sec. 376(2)/342/365/417/34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sec. 6/17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( hereinafter called as POCSO).

(2.) Opposite party no. 2 lodged written complain on 4/6/2019 before the Officer-in-charge, Onda Police Station, Bankura alleging inter alia that the accused No. 2 Sudip Mondal accompanied victim, pretending as love affair before canal Par and involved physical relationship with her, without her consent and confined her and in the midnight the accused no. 1 handed over the victim girl to her relatives. On 9/3/2019, in presence of relatives, the marriage was solemnized in between the accused No. 1 and the complainant /opposite party no. 2. After 7 days of marriage it is alleged that the accused no. 1 had left the place and the father, mother and sister of the accused No. 1 started to inflict torture and assaulted her and furthermore accused no. 2,3,4 tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil and out of fear she left her in-laws' house and took shelter at her maternal uncle's house. On the basis of written complaint the present proceeding was initiated against six accused persons including the petitioner

(3.) Mr. Swapan Mallick on behalf of the petitioners submits that during investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded and the victim/complainant /opposite party was not willing for further medical examination and as such nothing was collected for FSL examination. Mr. Mallick further submits that statement of victim girl was recorded under sec. 164 of the code. If the statement of the victim recorded under sec. 161 along with the statement of the victim made before the doctor while she was examined on 5/6/2019 and also with statement of the victim recorded under sec. 164 of the code on 21/6/2019, are read together it would be crystal clear that those are self-contradictory and having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge ought to have disbelieved the prosecution case and ought not to have framed charge against the petitioners mechanically without applying judicial mind.