- (1.)This revisional application is aimed at quashing the proceeding in G.R.P, G.R. Case No. 89 of 2000 arising out of Shalimar GRPS Case No. 10 dated 31.3.2000 under Sections 341/120B/326/120B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) now pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Howrah.
(2.)The aforesaid Shalimar GRPS case originated on the basis of First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Amitava Choudhury, the de facto complainant opposite party. The story as depicted in the FIR is that, the petitioner Radheshyam Agarwala, owner of Bengal Iron Corporation at Ashutosh Ghosh Raod, P. S. Jagacha deployed hired criminals to murder his son Manti Choudhury @ Taraknath Choudhury. On the night of 20th March 2000, his son was brutally assaulted with sharp cutting weapon, lathi by a group of unknown persons who threatened him with a direction to instruct the informant to withdraw the cases filed by the informant against Radheshyam Agarwala otherwise, he "would be buried alive. As his son refused to oblige he was attacked by one of the said criminals with a sharp cutting weapon aiming at his neck and in order to save himself from the attack the victim raised his right hand to save the blow as a result of which his little and ring finger of right hand were chopped of. Another sharp weapon blow was given on his left heal leaving the entire left heal hanging in one piece. A further sharp blow tore out the entire skin and muscle portion above his right foot which curled up like a mutton roll. In addition a large number of blood clots were still visible around the area of his buttock and entire body which are lethal weapon assaults. The miscreants left him in unconscious stage with prof used bleeding in a bush near 'jala' area (water portion) of Jagacha on the night of 20.3.2000. In the early hours of 21.3.2000 some people found the victim in unconscious state and removed him to Howrah General Hospital in a precarious condition. The FIR was received by Jagacha Police Station on 25.3.2000 and they forwarded the same to O.C., Shalimar GRPS. Shalimar GRPS received the FIR on 31.3.2000 at 8.45 A.M. and started the aforesaid RS. Case by registering the FIR. The investigation that followed ended in submission of final report as FRT. The informant was served with a notice by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Howrah and after hearing the complainant the learned Magistrate directed for further investigation. Thereafter, the police submitted charge-sheet No. 13 dated 30.9.2000 under Sections 341/326/120B of the I.P.C. against this petitioner only. The learned SDJM transferred the case to learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Howrah for disposal and the learned Magistrate by order dated 23.5.2003 framed charge under Sections 341/120B and 326/120B against the petitioner and hence, this revision assailing the order of the learned Magistrate framing charge against him.
(3.)Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner along with Mr. Sudipto Moitra and Mr. Subhasish Pachhal submitted that the FIR does not disclose name of any miscreant. In the FIR it was alleged that the informant strongly suspects that the petitioner hired dangerous criminals to murder his son Manti @ Taraknath Choudhury. The statement of the victim is not sufficient to attract elements of Sections 326/120B against the petitioner. None of the miscreants were either arrested or identified during investigation. The injured could not identify any of the alleged miscreants and statements of the injured recorded under Section 161 and under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. do not disclose name of any of the alleged assailants. In spite of that the police acted in a strange manner by filing charge-sheet against this petitioner who was not present at all at place of occurrence and his identity was not established. The statement of unidentified persons touching the name of this petitioner as transpired from statement of victim cannot be a ground to frame charge against the petitioner. In order to frame charge of conspiracy there must be plurality of persons so as to form the elements of conspiracy as question of conspiracy does not arise with the involvement of single accused. In the present matter the assailants, who caused injuries on the person of injured were not identified at all. Accordingly, involvement of this petitioner in the incident is nothi ig but hearsay and, that too, from the mouth of unidentified persons and such statement of unidentified person is wholly inadmissible.