Tanmoy Bhattacharya & Anr vs Unknown on 12 June, 2017

1

74
12.06.2017
sm
Allowed

CRAN 1134 of 2017
with
CRA No.127 of 2017

In re: An application under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
.

And

In the matter of:Tanmoy Bhattacharya Anr…. Appellants (In jail).

Mr.Swapan Mallick .. for the appellants.

Ms.Faria Hossain. .. for the State.

In a sessions trial, both these appellants were convicted

under sections 304B/498A IPC, while they were acquitted from the

charges under section 302 IPC and thereunder sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay fine with

default clause. They are the husband of the victim-housewife and

her brother-in-law.

After appeal being admitted and with the leave granted by

the court admitting the appeal, they have now approached this

court for suspension of sentence..

Going through the depositions of the witnesses, we find that

it is only the parents of the victim-housewife, who were examined

as PWs 7 and 8, alleged demand of dowry by the appellant two

months before the fateful incident. We do not find from the
2

depositions of the witnesses that there is any evidence that soon

before her death, she was subjected to torture for any demand of

dowry.

Admittedly, this is a case of suicide. .

We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and

considered the depositions of the witnesses as also the impugned

judgement.

Having regard to the fact, the learned advocate for the State

opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence. We have given her

an opportunity to file written objection in the light of the decision of

READ  Jai Kumar vs Balhari & Anr on 6 September, 2010

Atul Tripathi vs. State of UP, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 177.

However, she declined to file the same and submits that it

would be enough for her to argue this case on the basis of the

materials already on record.

Having regard to above and considering the finding on which

the order of conviction is based and the grounds on which the

same is under challenge, we are of the opinion, a prima facie case

has been made out showing possibilities of success in the appeal.

This is a case of term imprisonment and the appellants were all

along on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence of

the appellants is allowed.

During the pendency of hearing of appeal, the order of

execution of sentence be suspended and the appellants be
3

released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, South 24-Parganas upon furnishing a Bond of

Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of

whom must be local.

Office is directed to call for the lower court records, if not as

yet called for. If the record is already there, the requisite number of

paper books shall be prepared within four (4) months from this date

or then four (4) months from the date of arrival of the records and

immediately after the preparation of the paper books is complete

and the appeal is made ready for hearing, the same shall be listed

before the appropriate Bench for hearing.

We make it clear that any of the observations made

READ  Sandeep vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2017

hereinabove must not be construed as to our opinion regarding the

merit of the case. We make it clear that those observations were

made only for the reason that the same were necessary for taking

the decision as to the question of bail.

Accordingly, this application, being CRAN 1134 of 2017,

stands disposed of.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

handed over to the learned advocates for the parties on their usual

undertakings.

4

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J)

(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *