RANJIT MAJUMDER Vs. BHUPATI RAJAN KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed at the instance of the defacto complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6th May 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV at Krishnagore, Nadia in SC No. 75 (2)/05 corresponding to ST No. 15 (5)/05. The five opposite parties herein were charged by the learned Judge in the court below u/s 498a/306/34 IPC. The petitioner/defacto complainant whose daughter was married to one Ram Karmakar (not the accused) torture and assault on demand of money by the present opposite parties/accused persons who included father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law in the matrimonial home on demand of money. The husband of the victim would work at a different place and would came to his house from time to time. On 17. 6. 02 the defacto complainant's wife Smt. Charubala Mazumder had gone to the matrimonial home of her daughter to bring her to his house but the accused persons in presence of his wife assaulted his daughter and refused to send his daughter to his home unless a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid. Accordingly Charubala returned home disappointed and on the next day information was received by the defacto complainant that being unable to bear the torture his daughter Kakali died. He immediately rushed to the matrimonial home of his daughter and found the dead body lying on the veranda. This was the FIR being no. 112/02 dated 18. 6. 2002 registered against the opposite parties u/s 498a/306/34 IPC and upon completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against them under the aforesaid ground of the law.

(2.) THE learned Judge upon conclusion of trial recorded an order of acquittal and against this order of acquittal the defacto complainant has preferred this criminal misappreciation of evidence and consequently a total miscarriage of justice.

(3.) IT is well-settled principle of law that an order of acquittal should not be interfered with unless absolutely called for, and power of revisional court has been laid down in the catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. The decisions in K. Chinnaswami Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788, Bindeswari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Behar reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 1448 and Ram Briksh Singh and Ors. Vs. Ambika Yadav and Anr. reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 2009 may be cited by way of ready reference. While saying so, it has to be said further that if there has been no appreciation of evidence, or insignificant piece of evidence have been given undue weightage over substantive evidence and where a court overlooks to consider substantive evidence then in an exceptional circumstances order of acquittal can only be interfered with.