SWAMINATH ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second round of litigation. Earlier all the appellants had been convicted and sentenced under Sec. 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants appealed against such conviction and sentence. In the course of hearing of the appeal, a Division Bench of this Court noticed incriminating materials particularly the medical evidence on record had not been put to the appellants. On such premise, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for holding fresh examination under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and to proceed with the trial from the stage after giving opportunity to the appellants to lead defence evidence, if they chose to do so. Upon remand, the trial Judge examined the appellants under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Questions were put to them with regard to the medical evidence and other incriminating materials on record. Appellants did not choose to adduce defence evidence. Upon hearing arguments of the parties, the trial Court again by the impugned judgment and order dtd. 12/5/2016 and 13/5/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellants for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) This Court is informed during the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 2 namely Jageswar Roy has expired. Hence the appeal abates so far as appellant No. 2 is concerned.

(3.) As the case essentially hinges on the eyewitness version of a minor, I have scrutinized his evidence with utmost care. It is true a witness of tender age is prone to tutoring. Hence, a heavier duty is cast on the Court to scrutinize his evidence in the backdrop of other evidence on record to find out whether his version is truthful or a product of tutoring. In order to do so, I have examined the evidence of P.W. 5 in the backdrop of other evidence on record.