SOLEMANSK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, fast Track Court, Katwa, in connection with Sessions Case No. 165 of 2004 rejecting his prayer for further investigation, who happened to be the de facto complainant of the case, the petitioner moved the instant criminal revision.

(2.) MR. Tapan Deb Nandy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted before this Court that in the aforesaid sessions trial, the accused persons have been charged for commission of offences under section 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code along with other offences. Mr. Nandy further submitted that the victim of this case, namely, Sukur alias Sukchand Sk. , who sustained grievous hurt, was initially treated at Katwa Sub-Divisional Hospital, then at Burdwan Medical College and Hospital, for forty days and thereafter at S. S. K. M. Hospital at Calcutta for twenty days more. But it appears that none of the original treatment documents, namely, bed-head tickets, injury reports and other relevant papers were seized by the Investigating Officer of this case. According to Mr. Nandy, those are very vital documents for the purpose of establishing the charge against the accused persons. He further submitted that it appears from the chargesheet submitted in the Court that only the xerox copies of the few documents have been seized and the xerox copies not being admissible in evidence, would be of no use during the trial. Mr. Nandy further submitted that one of the FIR named eye-witness although readily available was not examined by the police and three other witnesses who have been examined by the police during the course of investigation and whose statement has been recorded by the police under section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure were also not cited in the chargesheet. Thus, Mr. Nandy submitted this clearly manifests a perfunctory investigation on the part of the investigating agency and that would benefit the accused persons and in the interest of justice, the investigating agency ought to be directed to make further investigation in exercise of the power under section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection, Mr. Nandy relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Benkata Vishwanandha Maharaj vs. State of A. P. and Ors. , reported in 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047 and submitted that in a situation where the Court found that the investigation is not complete and there is necessity of further investigation in the interest of justice, there is no inhibition on the power of the Court to direct the police to conduct further investigation. In support of his such submission Mr. Nandy also relied on two other decisions, viz. Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in AIR 1979 SC 1791 and Minu Kumari and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. , reported in 2006 (2) SCC (Cri) 310. Mr. Nandy submitted that this is a fit case where this Court should interfere and pass necessary order for further investigation into the matter.

(3.) MR. Kallol Bose, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused persons, submitted before this Court that it is no longer necessary for passing any order for further investigation and in the event, if it is found that any of the vital witnesses have been left out and whose examination would be necessary for the just decision of the case, he could have been called as a Court witness under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.