In a case that has shocked the conscience of the community, the Calcutta High Court has taken a decisive step by ordering the West Bengal Crime Investigation Department (CID) to delve into the circumstances leading to the tragic death of a woman engulfed in flames. This incident, marked by its harrowing details, involves the victim’s husband, who, rather than attempting to save his wife, allegedly chose to video-call her cousin, showcasing the distressing scene of her burning.
Also read- The Silent Voice: Justice Sen’s Impartiality In Calcutta High Court (lawchakra.in)
Justice Jay Sengupta, presiding over the case Nilanjan Mitra vs State of West Bengal, expressed grave concerns over the allegations presented. The case came to light following a plea by Nilanjan Mitra, the uncle of the deceased, who argued that the local police had not conducted a thorough investigation. He highlighted a particularly chilling detail: the husband’s decision to make a video call during the critical moments of the incident.
Justice Sengupta remarked, underlining the severity of the situation.
“It appears that during the call, the said cousin sister pleaded with the accused to save the victim (wife) instead of making the video call. It appears that the call went on for at least one minute. If a person catches fire and her husband is in a position to save her but chooses not to do so and does something else, it has to be explored whether this amounts to contributing to the death of the victim,”
Also read- Calcutta High Court Grants Approval For Termination Of 23-Week Pregnancy (lawchakra.in)
The court’s scrutiny revealed significant lapses in the initial investigation. The Investigating Officer (IO) was criticized for not considering the possibility that the husband could have caused the fire. Furthermore, the failure to record the statement of the cousin, a key witness, under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), was noted as a critical oversight.
The Court observed, highlighting the investigative lapses.
“These aspects have been given a total go-by by the Investigating Officer. In fact, the statement of such a vital witness as the said cousin sister should have been recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC),”
In light of these findings, Justice Sengupta ordered the immediate transfer of the investigation to the CID, citing “grave flaws in the probe.”
The case saw representation from both sides, with advocates Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Supreem Naskar, and Jayashree Patra appearing for the petitioner. The state was represented by advocates Ashim Kumar Ganguly, Sambuddha Dutta, and Sk Md Masud.
This judicial mandate for a CID investigation underscores the seriousness with which the Calcutta High Court views the allegations. It reflects a commitment to ensuring that justice is served, emphasizing the need for a thorough and unbiased examination of the facts surrounding this tragic incident.
The community and the victim’s family await the outcomes of the CID’s investigation, hoping for closure and justice in a case that has laid bare the potential for human indifference in the face of tragedy. The court’s intervention serves as a reminder of the legal system’s role in addressing grievances and ensuring that the truth is uncovered, irrespective of the challenges involved.
READ ORDER
