Bula Mishra & Ors vs In Re:- Avijit Singh @ Jyoti Singh on 20 June, 2017

1

CRAN 1332 of 2017
With
CRA 57 of 2017

In the matter of:- Bula Mishra Ors. .. Appellants.

Mr.Sudipto Maitra,Sr.Advocate,
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

clause.

In this appeal, they challenged the said order of conviction

and sentence.

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
2

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”.

38
20.06.2017

sm
Allowed
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.

And

In Re:- Avijit Singh @ Jyoti Singh .. Petitioner(In Jail)

Ms.Juin Dutta Chakraborty …. for the petitioner

Mr.Binay Panda
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.
3

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

diary).

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.)
4

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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