Abdus Salam vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Tirthankar Ghosh, J

The revisional application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17th May, 2006 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002 (S.T. No. 45 of 2003) arising out of Chakulia Police Station Case No. 50 of 1999 under Section 314/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). The learned Trial Court by the said judgment and order dated 17th May, 2006 was pleased to acquit the accused persons from the charges framed against them.

The prosecution case in brief is that one Abdus Salam, father of the victim Arshadi Begam lodged a complaint to the effect that the victim was married to one Golam Haider of Village Bagdogra as per Muslim Rites and Customs and the said marriage was solemnized few months before the incident. Prior to her marriage, one Sajim Akhtar allured the victim for marrying him, but the victim refused Sajim and married the aforesaid Golam Haider. After the victim became pregnant, the accused Sajim Akhtar administered poison under the disguise of medicine for abortion through Hasina Khatun, who used to work in the paternal house of the victim. The victim innocently consumed the poison and instantly died.

On receipt of the letter of complaint submitted by Abdus Salam to the Officer-in-Charge, Chakulia Police Station, Chakulia Police Station Case No. 50 of 1999 was registered for investigation. The Investigation Officer (IO) after collection of evidence particularly the inquest report, the post mortem report, a letter written in Urdu and the statement of different witnesses submitted chargesheet against the two accused persons namely, Hasina Khatun and Sajim Akhtar alias Manna under Section 314 of the IPC. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions and on being placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur, charges were framed after compliance of the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The charge was thereafter read over to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution in support of its case relied upon 11 witnesses namely, 1) PW1, Oli Mohd., 2) PW2, Abdus Salam - father of the victim, 3) PW3, Ramatun Nessa - mother of the victim, 4) PW4, Sarafat Hussasin - uncle of the victim, 5) PW5, Mamud Alam, 6) PW6, Masud Alam - uncle of the victim, 7) PW7, Golam Haider - husband of the victim, 8) PW8, Hasibur Rahman - works at printing press Kanki, 9) PW9, Dr. R.B. Ghosh, 10) PW10, Md. Faiyaz Alam - moulabi/private tutor and 11) PW11, SI Niranjan Mandal - Investigation Officer. However, the defence did not examine any witness for rebutting the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court on conclusion of evidence of the prosecution was pleased to examine the accused persons under Section 313 of CrPC and after affording opportunity to the defence was pleased to fix date for final arguments of the case. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the accused persons was pleased to deliver a judgment and order dated 17th May, 2006 to acquit the accused persons from the charges levelled against them.

The prosecution apart from examining the aforesaid 11 witnesses also relied upon a number of documents being FIR (Ext.1), endorsement of recording officer (Ext.1/1), signature of witness of inquest report (Ext.2), signature of PW6 on inquest report (Ext.2/1), inquest report (Ext. 2/2), letter in Urdu with translated copy (Ext.3), signature of PW5 on seizure list (Ext.4), seizure list (Ext.4/1), post mortem report (Ext.5), FSL report (Ext.6) and formal FIR (Ext.7). The learned Trial Court scrutinized the evidence so relied upon by the prosecution and after analyzing the different witnesses held that PW2 being the main witness that is the father of the victim was never examined by the IO, PW3 being the mother of the victim admitted in her evidence that the victim on the date of the incident went to her house at Bagdogra and such fact was suppressed by PW2 (her husband). PW4, according to the learned Judge, embellished his version before the Court as in his statement under Section 161 of CrPC before the IO, he had stated that when he reached the house of PW2, he found that the victim has already died, his improvement in Court shaked his credibility as a witness. The learned Trial Court on analysis of the other witnesses categorically held that although the prosecution witnesses consistently deposed in Court that poison was administered to the victim yet the prosecution case was different as it was based on anti worming drug being handed over to the victim for consumption. PW7, the husband of the victim was also not examined by the IO of the case and the prosecution under Section 311 of CrPC cited him as a witness and his deposition is contradictory to the other witnesses in view of the fact that the prosecution witnesses were divided on the issue of whether the victim had been to her husband's house or was at her paternal home. The medical evidence in the case reflected the opinion of the doctor, who admitted that de worming drug if used during the early stage of pregnancy may lead to termination of pregnancy and also the death of the mother. The learned Trial Court also observed that the examination of the viscera or the bottle did not reveal any poison on specific tests being carried out by experts.

It is a settled principle of law that an interference in revision against an order of acquittal can only take place if there is glaring defect of procedure or the Court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account such evidence which was inadmissible or had overlooked some evidence. It is further settled that there must be manifest illegality in the judgment of the learned Trial Court or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

I have carefully gone through the judgment delivered by the learned Trial Court which included proper analysis of the evidence of all the witnesses, logical reasons and a conclusion based on factual foundation which do not go against the settled principles of law in respect of examining the veracity of the witnesses as also the totality of the circumstances in the background of the facts of the case. It would not be out of place to state that in Antar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1979 (1) SCC 79, it has been held that where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible and the learned Trial Court has opted for one favouring acquittal, the High Court should not disturb the same merely on the ground that if it were in the position of the Trial Court it would have taken the alternative view and convicted the accused.

Having due regard to the manner in which the Trial court dealt with evidence on record and the settled principles of law, I do not think it to be a fit case for interference and as such the judgment and order dated 17th May, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions Case No. 117 of 2002 (S.T. No. 45 of 2003) is hereby affirmed.

CRR 1882 of 2006 is accordingly dismissed.

Department is also directed to communicate this order to both the Courts below.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.