SHYAMAL DAS @ SANU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the order dtd. 19/8/2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bongaon, North 24-Parganas wherein the Learned Trial Court was pleased to refuse the prayer for discharge advanced on behalf of the petitioner in connection with S.C. No. 241 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 1440 of 2018 arising out of Gaighata Police Station Case No. 514 of 2018 dtd. 6/6/2018.

(2.) Records of the revisional application reflect that the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by one Panchu Gopal Bairagi with the Officer-in-Charge, Gaighata Police Station on or about 6/6/2018, pursuant to which Gaighata Police Station Case No. 514 of 2018 was registered for investigation. On conclusion of investigation the Investigating Authorities submitted charge-sheet under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. In course of proceedings documents under Sec. 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were supplied to the accused/petitioner and the case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions and prior to consideration of charges a discharge petition was preferred and main crux of the application under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (discharge petition) was that the documents relied upon by the prosecution, prima facie, fails to connect the present petitioner with the alleged offence and as such no charge can be framed under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned Trial Court on an appreciation of the materials elaborately dealt with the issues particularly in relation to the materials which surfaced in course of the investigation. The Learned Court assessed the dying declaration, the different materials appearing in the Case Diary relating to the relationship existing between the present petitioner and the deceased for a considerable period of time and more particularly the statement of the witnesses and the attending circumstances.

(3.) Mr. Kallol Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner criticized the order passed by the learned Trial Court, refusing to discharge the petitioner. Learned Advocate submits that the alleged dying declaration relating to the transcripts of the diary of the deceased and the contents of the same taken as a whole do not by any stretch of imagination make out an offence under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code thereby asking the present petitioner to face the ordeal of trial. Learned Advocate submits that the deceased could have been the best witness if she was alive regarding the circumstances prevailing and if the contents of the suicide note is taken in its entirety, she has held that 'no one is responsible'. Learned Advocate relies upon the following decisions: