MUMTAZ BEGUM @ MAINA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 6th August, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court Hooghly in S.T. 12/2013 under Sections 376/417/120B of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed.

(2.) THE petitioner is facing trial in the instant case on the accusation of having committed offence punishable under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the petitioner is that the victim who is a deaf and dumb girl complained of feeling ill to her mother namely Alekjan Bibi who is the defacto complainant of the instant case. Upon taking the victim to hospital, it was found that the victim was pregnant and on enquiry the victim indicated that the petitioner was responsible for her pregnancy. It was alleged that the petitioner on the false promise of marrying the victim had raped the victim girl. Under such circumstances, the family members of the victim went to the house of the petitioner for settlement. They flatly refused the incident resulting in the registration of first information report. In course of trial, the prosecution prayed from examination under Section 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the victim girl, the doctor who examined the victim, the judicial magistrate who had recorded her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Judicial Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade in the instant case as they have not been listed as witnesses in the charge sheet. On the other hand, the petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner to give an opportunity to engage an interpreter in order to appreciate the evidence of the deaf and dumb girl. In view of the fact that the examination of the aforesaid witnesses as sought for a by the prosecution was essential for a just decision of the case, prayer of the prosecution was allowed by the impugned order. By the self -same order prayer to engage an interpreter to appreciate the evidence of the deaf and dumb girl as made by the petitioner was also allowed. The aforesaid order has been assailed in the revision petition.

(3.) NOBODY appears for the petitioner.