Rohit Das & Anr vs Unknown on 23 June, 2017

1

58 (Ct. 26)
23/06/2017

ARDR
(Rejected)

Re : CRAN 1152 of 2017
In
CRA 54 of 2017

In Re: An Application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
suspension of sentence.

In the matter of :- Rohit Das anr.

None ….Applicants.

Mr. Naguive Ahmed,
…for the State.

In spite of repeated calls, nobody appears in support of this application nor any

accommodation has been sought for. Yesterday, similar was the situation. Although,

learned counsel for the State is very much present in Court. We are not inclined to suo

motu adjourn the hearing of this case today, and in our opinion, this matter will be taken

up for hearing on merit.

In a sessions trial, these two appellants, who are the husband and mother-in-law of

the victim/housewife have been convicted under Sections 498A/304 of the Indian Penal

Code and while both of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two

years and to pay fine with default clause for their conviction under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code. They for their conviction under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code

was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and ten years respectively

and to pay fine with default clause.

In absence of the counsel for the appellants, we thought it fit to go through the

averments and grounds relied upon from the side of the defence and noted in the petition

of appeal.

2

Learned counsel for the State draws out attention to the evidence of the parents of

READ  Vijay Bajaj vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 11 April, 2012

the victim girl, which has been reproduced in the judgment at pages 4 and 5 and the

statement of the witnesses that at the time of marriage huge articles were given as dowry

and even after the marriage the victim girl was subjected to torture on demand of dowry

and even three days prior to the occurrence she was subjected to torture for demand of a

cot.

It is the case of the prosecution that on their failure to satisfy the demand of the

accused persons, the victim was tortured and being unable to bear such torture, she

committed suicide.

Now going through the impugned judgment and considering the findings on which

the order of conviction is based and the grounds on which the same is under challenge,

we allow the prayer for bail of the convict Bhutni Devi @ Urmila Devi, the appellant no.2

herein and in respect of Appellant no.1, Rohit Das, his prayer for suspension of sentence

stands rejected.

We, therefore, direct pending hearing of the appeal, the order of execution of

sentence shall remain suspended in respect of appellant no.2, namely, Bhutni Devi @

Urmila Devi and she be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Assansol on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/-

each, one of whom must be local.

The application being CRAN 1152 of 2017 stands allowed in respect of appellant

no.2 and rejected in respect of appellant no.1.

Office is directed if not the lower Court record has still been arrived a reminder be

READ  Sri Hanumantha vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2010

sent to the trial Court for sending the records and it shall be ensured that he records

must be arrived before this Court within two months from this date and immediately
3

after arrival of the records, the requisite number of Paper Books shall be prepared within

a year thereafter 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.

Urgent phosotat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the

learned counsel for the parties on their usual undertakings.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J. )

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

Leave a Comment

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