RAM GOSWAMI Vs. LAKSHMI KANTA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under sections 397 and 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Code) has been preferred by the petitioner, the victim challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.5.01 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Sealdah in G.R. Case No. 1183 of 2000 (T.R. No. 3443 of 2000) arising out of Narkeldanga P.S. Case No. 115 dated 12.5.2000 under sections 353/114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the IPC).

(2.) Before entering into the merits of the case it would be fruitful to mention, in short, the facts which resulted into the filing of the present revisional application. The prosecution case as it appears, in short, is that on 14.4.2004 S.I. M. Rahaman(P.W. 3) of Narkeldanga P.S. while on patrol duty received information of disturbance at premises No. 15, Narkeldanga North Road and receiving such information he arrived at spot. It was then about 10.30 p.m. and the police officer noticed gathering of some people in front of premises No. 15/H/12, Narkeldanga North Road and he found that an altercation was going on between the petitioner Rama Goswami (P.W. 1) and her husband Sanjib Goswami (P.W. 2) and the present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 over use of urinal which was situated near petitioner's kitchen. It is alleged that the opposite parties who were male accused persons in the case, outraged modesty of petitioner and torn her blouse. P.W. 3 S.I. M. Rahaman recorded suo motu FIR being Narkeldanga P.S. Case No. 115 dated 12.5.2000 and after completing investigation submitted chargesheet on 5,9.2000 and accused opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were sent up for trial. In the trial only three witnesses were examined by the prosecution namely, the petitioner (P.W. 1), her husband (P.W. 2) and the Investigating Officer-cum-FIR maker (hereinafter called the I.O.) S.I. M. Rahaman and after considering the evidence the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the judgment and order of acquittal the victim i.e. the present petitioner has moved this Court in this revisional application. Her contention is that the learned Magistrate erred in law giving undue stress on the discrepancies of time which was ignorable. Learned Magistrate also committed mistake and failed to realise the ingredients of outraging modesty of a women. Learned Magistrate also did not take into consideration that the prosecution case was uncontroverted by the defence.

(3.) Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the incident was on 15.4.2000 and the S.I. M. Rahaman receiving information of disturbance came to the spot on that very night on 15.4.2000, but strange enough, he did not take any action for about a month and lodged suo motu FIR on 12.5.2000. No explanation has been given in the FIR as to why for about a month no FIR was lodged at the police station. The petitioner and her husband ran over pillar to post and moved before the higher superior officers and thereafter only to show a light case the alleged FIR was lodged on 12.5.2000 under sections 354/114 of IPC. On the contrary, the victim P.W. 1 in her evidence stated that the accused opposite parties made attempt to rape her and her husband P.W. 2 stated that she was in fact raped by the accused opposite parties. Therefore, it is clear that though a case under section 376 of IPC was there or at least sections 376/511 of IPC was there, the police officer being influenced by the accused persons started a lighter case under sections 354/ 114 of IPC. The Investigating Officer (hereinafter called the I.O.) made perfunctory investigation and he did not seize anything. The I.O. did not send the victim to medical examination to ascertain whether she was actually raped or not. The complainant informed so many superior officers and thereafter only about a month later a so called light case was started.