CRAN 1332 of 2017
CRA 57 of 2017
In the matter of:- Bula Mishra Ors. .. Appellants.
Ms.Tannistha Bandyopadhyay. .. for the appellants.
Mr.Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, ld.PP
Mr.Partha Pratim Das. .. for the State.
In a sessions trial, these three (3) appellants, who happened
to be the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the victim, have been
convicted under sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of default
In this appeal, they challenged the said order of conviction
After admission of the appeal and the leave granted by the
learned court admitting the appeal, now they have approached this
court for suspension of sentence.
Now, going through the impugned judgement and depositions
of the witnesses, we find that this case is based on dying
declaration (Ext.7) recorded by PW 15, viz. Dr.Niloy Mondal, one of
her attending doctors and noted in the bedhead ticket.
The learned advocate for the appellants vehemently contends
that the history of the treatment noted in the bedhead ticket that at
the time of recording of the dying declaration, the victim was not
conscious. Furthermore, it is submitted that after sustaining 90 per
cent burn, it is quite impossible for anybody to make any statement
and that too when the other doctors found her drowsy and was not
in a position to speak.
However, according to PW 15, who recorded the dying
declaration, that ” she was in full state or condition on saying
while I examined her and recorded her statement”.
CRM No.5611 of 2017
In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 15.06.2017 in connection with
Bizpur Police Station Case No.156 of 2017 dated 31.03.2017 under
sections 498A/304B/24 of the Indian Penal Code.
In Re:- Avijit Singh @ Jyoti Singh .. Petitioner(In Jail)
Ms.Juin Dutta Chakraborty …. for the petitioner
Mr.Subham Bhakat. … for the State.
Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
parties. Perused the case diary.
The petitioner is in custody for about 80 days.
The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the victim-housewife.
The mother-in-law and the wife of the petitioner are on bail.
Opposing the prayer for bail, the learned advocate for the
State draws our attention to the statements of the witnesses, who
are the neighbours (at pages 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the case
Now, going through the same, we find that the allegation
against the present petitioner and the mother-in-law and the wife of
the petitioner, who are on bail, are almost identical.
Having regard to above and considering the petitioner’s length
of detention in custody, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands
allowed on parity.
Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond
of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom
must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas.
Accordingly, this application for bail is disposed of.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)
(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)