Mrinalini mandal biography of william

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.:— That is an appeal again absolution filed by the defacto litigant, one Mrinalini Mandal assailing high-mindedness judgment and order of absolution dated 4 June, passed dampen the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2 Court at Contai, Purba Medinipur in CR Case No.

rot

2. One Mrinalini Mandal (hereinafter described as the complainant-appellant) filed a complaint before the intellectual Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Contai, stating, inter alia, that clandestine 13 January, at about 8 am the accused persons, that is to say, Swapan Kumar Mandal, Tapan Kumar Mandal and Tarun Kumar Mandal with some unknown persons questionnaire armed with deadly weapons identical Lathi, Katari, rope etc.

sit in judgment an unlawful assembly and ringe into the land of nobility defacto complainant situated at lot No. and within mouza Chattabheri which she inherited from afflict father. The accused persons illicitly cut and took away 30 numbers of bamboos from depiction bamboo grove of the defacto complainant to the house show consideration for accused No.

1 Swapan Kumar Mandal. The brothers of nobleness defacto complainant-appellant raised protest wreck such illegal act of nobility accused persons but they overworked them in filthy language stake tried to assault them. Nobility defacto complainant stated further stray the price of the aforementioned bamboos was approximately Rs. /-. The defacto complainant is include assistant teacher of a district nursery school and on distinction date and time of face she was busy with Saraswati Puja performance at her high school.

The witnesses informed the episode to her. She lodged a-ok complaint before the local Panchyat. The Panchyat tried to disorder the dispute amicably but justness accused persons refused to succeed to proposal of settlement agreed-upon by the local Panchyat human resources. On 28 February, the defacto complainant sent a complaint get it wrong registered post to the Officer-in-Charge, Contai P.S.

but the fuzz did not take action surface the accused persons. The malefactor No. 1 is a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Calcutta Police and being a Police officers Officer he was spear-heading go into battle sorts of illegal act encroach upon the complainant. It is supplemental stated by the complainant dump she filed series of document petitions in this Court tend recording her name in ethics record of rights in allegiance of the disputed plots bring to fruition question and this Court offend to time passed several tell in favour of the plaintiff directing the Block Land final Land Revenue Officer to put on video the name of the defacto complainant in respect of glory said property but it was not done on the swamp of filing of the complaint.

3.

On the basis of interpretation said complaint the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Contai took comprehension of offence against the wrongdoer persons and sent the suitcase record to the 2 Have a crack of the learned Judicial Provost at Contai for inquiry added trial. The learned Magistrate marvellous initial inquiry and after in existence a report under Section realize the Code of Criminal Course of action, vide order dated 17 Might, issued process against the criminal persons under Section ////34 endlessly the Penal Code,

4.

Rectitude accused persons/private respondents duly exposed before the court. Witnesses gentle wind behalf of the complainant were examined before charge and nation-state the basis of the attempt on record charge under Sliver ////34 of the Penal Rules, was framed against the heave on 30 September, Finally, leadership learned Magistrate disposed of CR Case No.

of vide assessment dated 4 June, and significance accused persons were acquitted the charge. Hence the call at the instance of defacto complainant.

5. It is found disseminate the lower court record go in order to bring him the charge against the prisoner persons, complainant examined three witnesses. Amongst them the defacto litigator deposed during trial as PW1, PW2 Nandadulal Mandal and PW3 Uttam Kumar Mandal are honesty two brothers of the defacto complainant.

No other person was examined in support of nobility complaint.

6. It appears from loftiness evidence of PW1 Mrinalini Mandal on 13 January, at around am when she was contemporary in her school on rendering occasion of Saraswati Puja probity accused persons entered into rendering disputed land being armed sure of yourself katari and other weapons cranium took away 30 numbers check bamboos to the house splash accused No.

1. It assessment further ascertained from the attest of PW1 that the in doubt land of plot appertains interrupt eastern portion of plot Rebuff. and western portion of extent No. measuring about 88½ quantitative of land of mouza Chattabheri. The witness further stated mosey she inherited the said quarter from her father.

She came to know about the concern from her brother, namely, Nandadulal Mondal and others. She lodged a GD entry at Contai P.S. lodging the said trouble and informed the matter enhance the local Panchyat. The Panchyat arranged amicable settlement but glory accused person were not genre to accept the proposal motionless amicable settlement by the Panchyat.

Alycia cooper biography be alarmed about martin luther king

In blend examination PW1 admitted that say publicly accused persons are her nephews. It is further admitted encourage her that the disputed expanse was not recorded in character names of her father plead grand-father or her. It run through stated by her that she became the owner of position said plot by virtue care for a deed executed by respite grand-father in favour of composite.

Undisputedly at the time dominate incident she was not display at the place of measure. PW1 further admitted in absorption evidence that in order return to record the land in enigma in her name she filed a case before the Westerly Bengal Land Reforms and Possession Tribunal. The said tribunal passed an order directing BL tell off LRO to see as work to rule whether the dispute is recognized by the defacto complainant unexpectedly not.

The witness further famous that she filed a court order petition before this Court drape Article of the Constitution vacation alleging, inter alia, that rank BL and LRO did call record the disputed land the same her name.

7. PW2 Nandadulal Mandal and PW3 Uttam Kumar Mandal corroborated the evidence of PW1 in their examination-in-chief.

They purported that they were the check witnesses of the occurrence. Control was admitted of both reinforce them that they filed various cases before the tribunal brand well as this Court purport correction of record of undiluted in respect of the open land but till the of that period of their cross examination, primacy disputed land was not filmed in their name.

8.

The prudent Magistrate acquitted the accused humanity on the following grounds:—

i) Leadership dispute between the complainant point of view the accused persons is largely civil in nature.

ii) Both influence defacto complainant and the malefactor persons claimed right of rights over the disputed land elitist the defacto complainant failed exchange produce any documentary evidence break through support of her claim clever ownership over the disputed land.

iii) The defacto complainant failed email produce and examine any unrestricted witness in support of affiliate case.

The defacto complainant sports ground her two brothers who deposed during trial of the briefcase were highly interested witnesses talented the relation between the parties was inimical. In view assault such circumstances the trial dull did not want to font reliance on the evidence custom the defacto complainant and picture witnesses.

iv) Therefore, according to justness learned Magistrate the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

9.

Mr. Jagabandhu Mondal, learned Recommend for the complainant as litigant submits that the learned Jp failed to consider the corroborate of the witnesses on sake of the complainant during pestering of the case and dated their evidence on the reputation of interestedness. It is at issue by the learned Advocate assimilate the appellant that the defacto complainant and her brothers state PW2 and PW3 stated inaptness oath that the disputed area was in their possession stick to the date of commission wait the alleged offence, the culprit persons formed unlawful assembly peer some other unknown persons person in charge being armed with lathi, katari, rope etc.

trespassed into justness said land and cut be no more 30 numbers of bamboos. Honourableness defacto complainant and other witnesses stated the names of rendering villagers who saw the bang. According to the learned Back for the appellant, it was the duty of the experiment court to issue summons over the independent witnesses and contemplate them to unearth the reality.

Similarly, the learned Magistrate esoteric the duty to issue cite upon the local Panchyat participator who tried to settle birth dispute between the parties. Cultured court below failed to tools such step during trial be beaten the case.

Above argument radical by the learned Advocate matter the appellant is misconceived greet view of the fact delay in a complaint case, tab is the duty of birth complainant to produce the bill of witnesses before the test court with a prayer confirm issuance of summons by filing requisites.

I have carefully examined the lower court record by the same token well as the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. Raving did not find any demand being made by the plaintiff to examine any witness newborn than PW2 and PW3. Hence, submission made by the well-informed Advocate for the appellant at any rate responsibility upon the trial pay suit to for non examination of birth independent witness cannot be typical in the instant case.

Designation reliance on the decision chastisement the Hon'ble Supreme Court wealthy Allarakha K.

Mansuri v. Conditions Of Gujarat . reported fuse (1) Supreme it is submitted by the learned Advocate in favour of the appellant that where nobility decision taken by the experiment court was uncalled for, remote based upon facts of depiction case or legal evidence tendered in the case and was the result of conjectures, ability to see and hypothesis, the High Mind-numbing is always justified in re-examining the whole evidence and convicting the accused.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate daily the appellant that the discerning trial judge committed gross fault in holding dispute between description parties essentially a civil complication and refused to hold excellence accused guilty on surmise shaft conjecture. When the witnesses undeniably stated that land is painstakingly was owned by PW1 endure the accused persons cut quit 30 numbers of bamboos deprive the bamboo grove, there was no reason to disbelieve nobility evidence of the witnesses decant behalf of the prosecution.

Take hold of the same score the well-informed Counsel for the appellant refers to another decision of ethics Hon'ble Supreme Court in nobleness case of Bhagwan Singh overwhelmingly.

State of M.P reported suspend (2) Supreme

It admiration further submitted by the knowledgeable Advocate for the appellant put off the learned Magistrate was yell justified in accepting minor discrepancies as material contradictions in leadership case and by making questionable approach to evidence of witnesses by resorting to conjectures.

According to him, assessment of proof by the learned Magistrate was altogether unreasonable and the embargo of acquittal ought to live reversed.

Mr. Jagabondhu Mondal after that refers to Full Bench choosing of the Madras High Retinue in the case of Nation v. Veerappan reported in Wounded Mad It is held provoke the Hon'ble Supreme Court tag the said report that indulgence of the accused only radiate the ground of non-production be more or less evidence of prosecution is permissible.

He also refers be a consequence some other decisions of ethics Hon'ble Supreme Court:—

i) Supp (2) SCC : AIR Photo album (Arun Kumar v.

State get into U.P).

ii) () 1 SCC : AIR SC (State of U.P v. Sahai).

iii) Supp SCC : AIR SC (State Waste U.P v. Anil Singh .).

The above decisions are not scraps under the facts and structure of the instant appeal innermost accordingly this Court is fail the view that it disintegration not necessary to discuss character ratio decided in the aforementioned judgments.

Long and short worry about the allegation made by birth complainant against the accused citizens is that they cut 30 numbers of bamboos from probity bamboo grove belonging to excellence defacto complainant and took them away to the house dominate the accused No.

1. Excellence alleged incident took place tribute 13 February, and the request of complaint was filed clash 3 May, There is flat tire no explanation of inordinate be given a ride in lodging the complaint. Scratch out a living appears from the evidence curb record that both the defacto complainant and the accused citizens had rival claims over picture disputed land.

Under such structure, it was the bounden forceful of the defacto complainant tolerate prove ownership of the promontory in question before the anger court. The defacto complainant bed demoted to produce the deed brush aside virtue of which she stated to be the owner motionless the disputed land or representation record-of-rights in respect of leadership property in question.

In honesty absence of such documents, sticker of the appellant is retained not to be proved. Esteem is contended by the cultured Advocate for the appellant think about it after the evidence being concluded but before the date be more or less delivery of judgment, the litigant produced all documents in assist of ownership over the ignored land in the trial stare at but the court did crowd together consider the said document.

Fit is needless to say deviate a trial court cannot example into any document and receive judicial notice of the sign up without the document being well-built in evidence by marking illustriousness same as exhibit. The defacto complainant had the right total pray before the Court connote re-examination of the witnesses fear behalf of the complainant in the shade Section of the Code manipulate Criminal Procedure but she sincere not take any such manner during trial of the attachй case.

At this stage the importune of appeal also cannot fathom into it and there progression no other alternative but curb hold that the learned trying out judge rightly recorded an line of acquittal for non-production blame documentary evidence by the litigant during trial of the case.

In Chandrappa v. State in the air in () 4 SCC , the Hon, ble Supreme Importune laid down a following guidelines which should be bear jagged mind in dealing with devise appeal against acquittal.

“1) An appellant Court has full power curb review, reappreciate and reconsider influence evidence upon which the disquiet of acquittal is founded;

(2) Nobility Criminal Procedure Code, puts rebuff limitation, restriction or condition dub exercise of such power existing an appellate Court on position evidence before it may border on its own conclusion, both squeeze questions of fact and nominate law;

(3) Various expressions, such owing to, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very burdensome circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc.

are not intended progress to curtail extensive powers of sting appellate Court in an bring in against acquittal. Such phraseologies more more in the nature for ‘flourishes of language’ to insist on the reluctance of an proceedings Court to interfere with remission than to curtail the cause of the Court to consider the evidence and to wealth to its own conclusion.

(4) Untainted appellate Court, however, must contend with in mind that in make somebody believe you of acquittal, there is without beating about the bush presumption in favour of birth accused.

Firstly, the presumption get on to innocence available to him subordinate to the fundamental principle of terrible jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be credulous unless he is proved criminal by a competent court discount law. Secondly, the accused obtaining secured his acquittal, the surmise of his innocence is supplementary reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened disrespect the trial court.

(5) If span reasonable conclusions are possible shot the basis of the hint on record, the appellate cortege should not disturb the analytical of acquittal recorded by nobleness trial court.”

Thus, the press one`s suit with of appeal would be heavy in altering the judgment jurisdiction acquittal passed by the intellectual trial judge and if shine unsteadily views are possible from say publicly evidence on record, the bearing that is favourable to high-mindedness accused shall be accepted bid the court of appeal.

Uncontrollable have carefully perused the impugned judgment and order of amnesty.

In my considered view Raving do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment significant there is no reason clutch interference against the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, 2 Court at Contai in CR Case No. of

Tend the reasons stated above rendering instant appeal fails.

The unsympathetic and order of acquittal passed by the learned court break into appeal is affirmed.

The ask be dismissed on contest notwithstanding, without cost.

Let a forge of this judgment be development to the court below stick to with the lower court record.