TATHAGATA PARUL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only issue that falls for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is whether the petitioner has been honourably acquitted or not, in terms of Rule 13(a) of the West Bengal Primary Education (Conduct of Service of Teachers of Primary Schools) Rules, 2001, after being acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur, upon pronouncement of judgment on 19th September, 2013, in respect of S.C. No. 324/Nov./12; S.T. No. 16/Feb. 2013. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner was appointed on 3rd March, 2010, as a primary school teacher of Ghoshpur Primary School, situated within the jurisdiction of the District Primary School Council, Purba Medinipur. On the basis of a complaint made by one Balai Chand Samanta on 8th March, 2012, a criminal case was initiated against the petitioner by Panskura Police Station, being Case No. 61 of 2012, under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on the very next day and subsequently produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk and kept in judicial custody. Around a month later, the petitioner was released on bail. Thereafter, the case went on trial and ultimately on 19th September, 2013, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioner under section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) It is noticed from the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 19th September, 2013 that the prosecution had examined seven witnesses and relied on certain exhibits. No evidence had been adduced by the defence. The prosecution witness no. 5, being the victim girl, during cross-examination before the learned Sessions Judge, stated that she had been tutored by the police to make a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering all materials and evidence on record, held that recovery of the victim girl with the accused "does not ipso facto proves (prove) that the accused had kidnapped the victim girl." The Court further observed from the evidence on record it appeared that after recovery, the victim girl made a statement before the Magistrate wherein she stated that she had a love affair with the accused and out of such love affair she and the accused married each other at a temple. However, in her statement before the learned Sessions Judge, the victim girl stated that she went to the house of the accused as she was her neighbour. During cross-examination, however, she stated that at the relevant point of time she went to the house of Tathagata (being the writ petitioner) and subsequently the police came to his house and she did not go anywhere from the house of Tathagata before arrival of police. Regarding her statement before the learned Magistrate, the victim girl stated before the learned Sessions Judge, on oath, that she made such a statement before the learned Magistrate on being tutored by the police and that no marriage was solemnized between her and Tathagata. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, proceeded to observe that the statement made before the learned Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during the course of investigation, was a corroborative piece of evidence and it was not a substantive piece of evidence. The Court further observed that in the instant case there were contradictions in respect of the statement of the victim girl before the learned Magistrate, made under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the course of investigation and her statement before the learned Sessions Judge, on oath, at the time of evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, went on to observe that in both the statements one thing was clear, that "she was not kidnapped by the accused" (being the writ petitioner). The learned Sessions Judge further observed that "the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation of kidnap (kidnapping) of the victim girl from her lawful guardianship "by the accused person." In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Tathagata, being the writ petitioner herein.

(3.) At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the relevant rules of the West Bengal Primary Education (Conduct of Service of Teachers of Primary Schools) Rules, 2001, which are set out hereinbelow: