SAMRAT @ NILADRI DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the ground of urgency with regard to expiry of interim order, Mr. Mitra, learned advocate for the petitioner, mentioned this matter and prayed for extension on the last occasion. On the objection made by the complainant -opposite party that the trial of the criminal proceeding is being delayed and further submitted that he filed an application for vacating the interim order that the matter was directed to appear under the heading 'Application'. But inadvertently this has been placed today under the heading 'To Be Mentioned'.

(2.) Considering the urgency involved in this matter by consent of the parties, the main revisional application is taken up for hearing for disposal treating the same as on day's list and accordingly, I am not dealing with either the application for extension or vacating separately.

(3.) In the revisional application the accused petitioner has challenged the order being No. 20 dated 26th February, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Jalpaiguri, rejecting the petitioner's application for recalling of a witness the P.W. - 1 (complainant). In the recalling application which is annexed to the revisional application (Annexure -B), the petitioner stated that immediately after the cross -objection of P.W. - 1 was closed, he filed the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. praying for recalling of the witness for a limited purpose to put certain questions to the complainant P.W. - 1 inasmuch as in her examination - in -chief she has contradicted her own statement in the written compliant. In support of such prayer the petitioner has stated that within the earliest possible time she took out this application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and prayed for recalling of the witness to re -examine her on the said limited questions. Mr. Mitra has drawn attention of this court to the written complaint filed by the P.W. - 1 which is annexed to the revisional application (P -25) where she stated that first on 20th January, 2008 and later on 29th November, 2009 she had intercourse with the accused at the residence of the accused. The complainant went to the accused house as she was invited by the accused and in her complaint she has made out a case that giving a false assurance of marrying, the accused had actually raped her. From the deposition of P.W. -1 Mr. Mitra has shown to the court that though those were the statements made in the written complaint but in her examination -in -chief she stated that she had to undergo sexual intercourse by force which according to Mr. Mitra the de facto complainant has contradicted her own written statement in the complaint. But this part was not considered while the P.W. - 1 was cross - examined and accordingly after the same mistake was detected within the earliest possible time the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed before the court immediately after the completion of cross -examination of P.W. - 1. Mr. Mitra has also drawn attention of this court to the last page of the cross -examination of P.W. - 1 held on 25th February, 2014 which is as follows :