Menoka Malik vs The State Of West Bengal

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.05.1993, panchayat   elections   were   held   in   Karanda   village,   wherein   the CPI(M) party won and the IPF party lost.  On the next day, i.e. on 31.05.1993,   at   about   8:30   a.m.,   15   to   16   members   of   the   IPF party took shelter in the house of PW2, Badal Malik, their party leader, upon being chased by some CPI(M) workers.   At around 1:30 p.m., Bhanu Hathi, Kachi Hathi and Bhaluk Hathi (accused no.56/respondent no.57 herein) started to abuse PW3, Shyamali Pakrey, the wife of PW30, Sunil Pakrey, an IPF supporter, upon whose   protest,   the   CPI(M)   persons   mobilised   around   250­300 party   workers,   all   being   armed   with   weapons   such   as   lathi, balam, tangi etc.  It is further the case of the prosecution that the persons belonging to CPI(M) party set on fire the houses of IPF members, including the party leader Badal Malik, assaulted IPF members and broke into the houses of the locality and destroyed household   articles,   apart   from   stealing  an   amount   of   Rs.700/­ and   snatching   a   pair   of   gold   earrings.     In   the   assault   on   IPF members,   five   persons   expired   and   24   persons   were   seriously injured.

4. Charges were framed for the aforementioned offences.   As many as 82 accused were tried.  49 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, which included 36 eye witnesses, i.e. PWs 1­23, 29, 30, 31,  33,  34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 47. Out of these,   the   testimonies   of   PWs   17   and   18   ran   counter   to   the prosecution’s   case,   and   PW42   claimed   to   not   recollect   the incident on account of mental sickness.

6. The  State  did  not prefer any appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.   However, the 5 first   informant   along   with   three   others   filed   a   revision   petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court.  During the course of hearing of the revision petition, it was submitted on behalf of the revision petitioners that no case is made out against 48 of the 82 accused, and that the revision petition would be concerned only with rest of the 34 accused.  It may be noted at this juncture that in the course of arguments before  us,   it  was   brought to  our  notice that  6 out of these 34 accused are now dead.

11. The   trial   Court,   while   coming   to   its   conclusion,   has observed   that   several   eye   witnesses   had   revealed   the   material facts before the trial Court for the first time, inasmuch as such statements   of   the   witnesses   before   the   Court   are   material 9 improvements; such statements were not made by the witnesses during the course of investigation before the police officials and omissions are proved as per law.

PW5, Anna Pakrey, deposed that on the day of the incident, some IPF workers took shelter in the house of PW2, Badal Malik on being threatened  by  some CPI(M) workers. After  some time, around   200­250   CPI(M)   workers,   including   Harigopal   Goswami (A­80/R­81   herein),   Ram   Tah   (A­68/R­69   herein)   and   Satya 10 Chakroborty   (A­71/R­72   herein)   assembled   around   the   house, hurling abuses at the persons inside. The CPI(M) workers asked Bhanu Hati (chargesheeted as accused, since deceased) to set the house on fire, upon which the hiding people rushed out and took shelter in the house of PW9, Mantu Mal, which was set on fire by one Kachi Hati (a reference to Kartik Hazra, A­28/R­29 herein). Thereafter, the IPF workers started running from room to room. Dilip Pakrey (deceased), PW5’s husband, came out of the house, at which point he was assaulted by Jiten Kora (A­1/R­2 herein), Kena   Kora   (A­7/R­8   herein),   Bhola   Mukherjee   (A­77/R­78 herein),   and   Sitaram   Makar   (A­70/R­71   herein),   with   deadly weapons such as tangi, bogi, and kencha. Pranab Bouri (A­40/R­ 41   herein),   struck   Dilip   Pakrey   with   a   ballam.   Sakti   Gadi   (A­ 15/R­16 herein) passed urine in his mouth. At this point, PW5 fainted.   After   she   regained   consciousness,   she   went   around looking for her children and got assaulted by Radhi Kora (A­8/R­ 9 herein) with a shavol and by one Santana Majhi (a reference to Sanatan   Mandi,   A­44/R­45   herein)   by   a   bamboo   lathi.   PW5 further   stated   that   Manik   Hazra   (deceased)   was   assaulted   by Sudeb Hati (a reference to Sudeb Hazra, A­30/R­31 herein), and that one Rajib Kora cut off Manik Hazra’s penis.  11

13. By   now,   it   is   well   settled   that   the   revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against   an   order   of   acquittal,   cannot   be   exercised lightly   and   that   it   can   be   exercised   only   in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires   interference   for   correction   of   manifest illegality   or   the   prevention   of   gross   miscarriage   of justice.   In   these   cases,   or   cases   of   similar   nature, retrial or rehearing of the appeal may be ordered.” 24     (Emphasis Supplied)

26. Before parting with the matter, we hasten to add that any observations made in this order will not influence the High Court in   deciding   the   revision   petition   on   merits.   With   these observations, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 30.06.2004 passed in C.R.R. No. 26 765 of 2002 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court   to   decide   the   revision   petition   on   merits,   in   accordance with law.