SANDHYARANI DAS vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
CRR No. 1241 of 2026
(CRAN 1 of 2026)
SANDHYARANI DAS
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Adv.
Mr. Safdar Azam, Adv.
Mr. Jyotirmoy Talukdar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Debapriya Samanta, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P.
Mr. Ayan Basu, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Banerjee, Adv.
Heard on : 31.08.2026
Judgment on : 31.08.2026
Uploaded on : 01.09.2026
2
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.:-
1. By filing the instant criminal revisional application, the petitioner has
th
assailed the order dated 7 January, 2026 passed by the learned
st
Judicial Magistrate, 1 Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in connection
with G.R. Case No. 83 of 2006 arising out of Contai Police Station Case
No. 28/06 dated 15.02.2026 under Sections 323/324/506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. By the said impugned order, the learned Trial Court has closed the
evidence of the prosecution without examining the two vital doctors
and the investigating officer being C.S.Ws. 10, 11 and 13 respectively,
only on the prayer of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor without
execution of the warrant of arrest issued against them by the Trial
Court.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned
Trial Court did not consider the case of the prosecution, which was
wholly based on the fact that the accused persons assaulted the victim
and threatened him with dire consequences. The victim sustained
serious injury on his person and was treated in the hospital. Doctors
examined him and treated him accordingly. The injury report was
collected by the Investigating Officer, and the same is available on
record; therefore, without exhibiting the injury report by the doctors,
3
the matter cannot be disposed of properly and effectively, and the
complainant would be highly prejudiced.
4. The learned Trial Court had issued a warrant of arrest against the
witnesses when they failed to appear before the trial court for
deposition. Without execution of the warrant of arrest, the prosecution
prayed for the closure of evidence, and, based on such prayer by the
Learned APP, the Trial Court closed the evidence and fixed the same for
examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., after recalling the
warrant of arrest. The law does not permit closing of evidence without
examining the vital witnesses and the investigating officer. Therefore,
the impugned order is liable to be set aside, with a direction to the
learned Trial Court to examine all three vital witnesses in order to
establish the actual injury suffered by the victim and to corroborate the
alleged offence.
5. Learned advocate for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the
prosecution is unable to bring the said witnesses despite issuance of a
warrant of arrest. The case has been pending since 2006, and the
accused persons are suffering due to delay in trial. They are entitled to
a speedy trial and disposal of the case; otherwise, the right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be violated. Several
opportunities were provided to the prosecution to examine those
witnesses, but the prosecution failed to do so. The matter was fixed for
4
examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code after
the closing of the evidence. The order has been passed correctly and
with valid reason. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate representing the State submits
that the prosecution is unable to bring the witnesses; however, P.W. 1,
the victim, has already deposed evidence and stated everything in
detail in the evidence. Therefore, even if the doctors are not examined,
the result would be the same. Therefore, there is no requirement to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court, since the
case has been pending since 2006.
7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned advocates for the
respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record and the
impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds
that P.W. 1, the victim, has deposed evidence against the accused
persons, who assaulted him with fists and blows on his face, chest and
other parts of the body. He further stated that the accused persons had
assaulted him with a lathi and by katan; as such, he sustained injury
on the skull, abrasion on the shoulder, hands, neck, back and hip, etc.
The evidence of the doctors who treated him is quite essential for
corroboration of the evidence of P.W.1 (victim). The evidence of the
Investigating Officer is also important to decide the case.
5
8. It appears that apart from the aforesaid circumstances, earlier a Co-
ordinate Bench of this court, while disposing of the revisional
application filed by the petitioner being CRR 1691 of 2019, observed
that the trial was conducted under Sections 323/324/506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, which incorporates the bodily injury.
9. The Co-ordinate Bench was of the view that without examining the two
doctors and the investigating officer, it would be difficult for the learned
Trial Court to conclude, and directed the learned Magistrate to fix dates
in October, 2021 and November, 2021 so that the examinations of the
two doctors and the investigating officer could be completed and,
thereafter, fix a date for examination under Section 313 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. It was further held that in case the defence intended
to examine any witnesses, the learned Trial Court could allow 60 days,
if required, for examination of the defence witnesses and, thereafter,
th
pronounce the verdict of the case on or about 15 February, 2026
considering the length of pendency of the proceedings vide order dated
27.09.2021.
10. Despite such direction, the prosecution was unable to bring those vital
th
witnesses till 7 January, 2026. It is also an undisputed fact that the
case has been pending for more than 20 years. The learned Trial Court
had issued warrants of arrest against C.S.Ws. 11 and 12; however,
before those warrants could be executed, the prosecution prayed for
6
closure of evidence, a course that is neither appropriate on the part of
the prosecution nor permissible in law, particularly when the matter is
founded entirely on the injury sustained by the victim and the evidence
of the doctors is crucial for the Trial Court to arrive at a final
conclusion.
11. This Court finds that the evidence of C.S.Ws. 10, 11 and 13 is vital to
ascertain and/or unearth the truth of the alleged incident by which the
victim suffered injuries on his person.
12. The present proceeding has been pending since the year 2006, and the
accused is entitled to a speedy trial as an integral facet of the right to
life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. However, having regard to the nature of the
allegations and the fact that the evidence of the doctors bears directly
upon the question of the injury sustained by the victim, this Court is of
the considered view that the ends of justice would be better served by
affording the prosecution one final opportunity to adduce the
remaining evidence before the learned Trial Court.
th
13. Hence, the impugned order dated 7 January, 2026 passed by the
st
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in
connection with G.R. Case No. 83 of 2006 arising out of Contai Police
Station Case No. 28/06 dated 15.02.2026 under Sections 323 / 324 /
506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby set aside. The
7
learned Trial Court shall issue a summons for their attendance first on
a day-to-day basis, and if necessary, exhaust all processes in
accordance with law to ensure their appearance to adduce evidence on
the date fixed. The entire exercise shall be done as expeditiously as
possible without granting unnecessary adjournment, keeping in mind
the length of pendency of the proceeding.
14. With the above observations and directions, CRR No. 1241 of 2026
stands allowed and disposed of .
15. Consequently, the connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026 is also
disposed of.
16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
17. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Trial court
for information and necessary steps.
18. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
19. The concerned Department is directed to supply urgent certified
Photostat copy of this judgment to the parties, if applied for, upon
compliance of all necessary formalities.
( Ajay Kumar Gupta, J .)
AN