KHITISH CH BARMAN Vs. GAURANGA BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order, dated 12.06.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, in Criminal Motion No. 14(4) of 1996, whereby the order, dated 18.09.1996, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Kokrajhar, in C.R. Case No. 108c of 1996, framing charge against the accused-opposite party under Section 493 IPC was set aside and the accused was accordingly discharged.

(2.) In a nutshell, the material facts and various stages, which have led to the present revision, may be set out as follows : (i) A complaint, in writing, was lodged by the present petitioner, as complainant, his case being briefly, stated, thus : The complainant and the accused persons are the residents of the same village. The victim, namely, Smti Swapna Barman, a student of Class-VIII, is daughter of the complainant. Taking advantage of the absence of the complainant from his house on the day of the occurrence, the accused-opposite party, by exchanging garlands and putting vermilion on the forehead of the said victim, projected as if a marriage had taken place between the two and, thus, enticing the said victim with such a show of marriage, the accused-opposite party had sexual intercourse with her. The accused- opposite party used to come to the house of the complainant off and on, he used to take meals there and, often, had sexual intercourse with the said victim, who, on becoming pregnant, asked the accused-opposite party to marry her formally, the accused-opposite party tried to avoid and when it was told to him that the matter would be reported, the accused-opposite party became furious. When the matter was reported to the complainant, the complainant alongwith the witnesses went to the house of the accused on 14.04.1996, but the accused-opposite party and his father threatened to assault them and used filthy language. (ii) In course of time, the complainant examined as many as 5 witnesses including his victim daughter, namely, Smti Swapna Barman (PW 2). On considering the evidence on record, learned trial Court framed charge against the accused-opposite party under Section 493 IPC. The order, so framing charge, was impugned in Criminal Motion No. 14(4) of 1996 aforementioned. By the order, dated 12.06.97, which, now, stands impugned in the present revision, the order, dated 18.09.1996, framing the charge was, as already indicated hereinabove, set aside. The complainant has, now, approached this Court with the present application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) I have perused the materials on record. I have heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, and Mr. G.M. Paul, learned counsel for the accused-opposite party.