.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. 846 of 2022 With CRAN 7/2023 Sandhyarani Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Another For the Petitioner : Mr. Satadru Lahiri. Adv.

Mr. Safdar Azam, Adv.

Mr. Syed Wasim Faruque, Adv.

Mr. Jyotirmoy Talukder, Adv.

For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, Adv.

Mr. Amitava Karmakar, Adv.

For the State : Md. Anwar Hossain, Adv.

Heard on : 11.04.2025 Judgment on : 25.06.2025 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. Petitioner being the complainant has filed this Criminal Revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC’) challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 18th February, 2022 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st 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 15.02.2006 under Sections 323/324/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 whereby the Learned Magistrate allowed the prayer of the accused/opposite party no. 2 to recall the prosecution witnesses being P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 at a belated stage i.e., after 7 to 14 years for only re-examination to contradict and confront the witnesses by the accused persons.

2. Originally, a complaint was lodged by the father of the present petitioner, namely, Asim Kumar Das (since deceased) with an allegation, inter alia, that on 8th February, 2006, while he was on his way to visit a nearby doctor, the accused/opposite party no. 2 abused him using filthy languages and threatened him with dire consequences on the way. Again, on 14th February, 2006 at about 6:30 hour, while the complainant went to arrange for masons, the opposite party no. 2 and another accused (since deceased) assaulted him with Lathi, Katan etc. and attempted to kill him due to previous grudge. However, local people rescued the complainant and he was treated in Contai Sub-Divisional Hospital and, thereafter, at NRS Medical Collage and Hospital.

3. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR was registered being Contai Police Station Case No. 28/06 dated 15.02.2006 under Sections 323/506/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and caused investigation.

4. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 52/06 dated 31st March, 2006 against the accused/opposite party no. 2 and another individual for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323/324/506/34 of the IPC. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the witnesses under Sections 161 of the CrPC and also collected the injury report. On the basis of charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, the Learned Trial Court framed charge against the accused/opposite party no. 2 and another for commission of offence punishable under Sections

323/324/506/34 of the IPC and trial commenced.

5. P.W. 1 was examined on 6th December, 2008 and cross- examined at length by all accused persons. P.W. 2 was examined in full and discharged on 18th June, 2009. P.W. 3 was examined and discharged on 16th August, 2010. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were examined and discharged on 16th May, 2014. Finally, several dates were fixed between 6th May, 2015 to 14th June, 2019 for adducing evidence of C.S.W. 10 and C.S.W. 11, who were the treating doctors of the complainant. However, despite multiple opportunities, the prosecution failed to ensure their presence on the dates fixed by the Learned Trial Court. Ultimately, on 14th June, 2019, the Learned Trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution as several opportunities were already given to the prosecution and fixed 19.06.2019 for examination of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC. Though, two witnesses i.e. C.S.Ws. 10 and 11 were vital witnesses for proper and effective adjudication of the case.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the approa