SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Chandramoy Das & Anr vs Unknown on 26 September, 2019


CRA No.392 of 2019
CRAN 2610 of 2019

In re: An application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 17-07-2019 being CRAN 2610 of 2019.

In the matter of : Chandramoy Das Anr.
… Appellant Nos.2 3/Petitioners.

Mr. Angsuman Bera,
Mr. Sujay Kumar Halder
… For appellant nos.2 3/petitioners.

Mr. Neguive Ahmed,
Ms. Zareen N. Khan
… For the State.

Re : CRAN 2610 of 2019


This is an application by two of the convicts who have
along with their son filed CRA 392 of 2019 against the order of
conviction and sentence imposed on them for offences found to be
punishable under Sections 498A and Section304B read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code.

2. This application is one by appellant nos.2 and 3 who are
the parents of the first appellant, who had married the victim.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants who
very persuasively pointed out that the totality of the evidence is

insufficient to inculpate the parents of the first accused and the
materials on record clearly show that they have a strong prima
facie case in having their conviction set aside in this appeal. He
further points out that the second appellant, who is the father of
the first appellant, is 89 years of age and the third appellant, who
is the mother of the first appellant, is 75 years of age and their
age may be treated as an extenuating circumstance and ground
to enlarge them on bail on humanitarian grounds.

4. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on the
fairly lengthy judgment written by the court below. We notice
that the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 have been found to be
reliable and corroborating each other on material particulars
regarding the demand for dowry and also physical and mental
torture on the victim. The death occurred about three years after
the marriage. PW 1, the defacto complainant, is the brother of
the victim and PW 2 is the father of the victim. The assimilation
of their testimony by the court below reflects cogent consideration
of all relevant aspects. Bearing in mind the mandatory
presumption prescribed by law as per Section 113B of the
Evidence Act, we cannot but hold that we are not satisfied that
the applicants have demonstrated a strong prima facie case that
this appeal would end up in acquittal.

5. We have also given our anxious consideration to the age
factor of the applicants. The appellant no.2 being 89 years of age
and the appellant no.3 being 75 years of age, are the parents of
the first accused who married the victim. The death resulted out
of 90 per cent or more of burn injuries on the victim which
occurred three years after the marriage. It is also a matter of
record that the parents are accused in a similar case relating to

the death of the girl whom the first accused had married earlier.
They were convicted in that case. Learned counsel for the
appellants points out that insofar as that criminal case is
concerned, the appeal is pending before the Court and sentence
has been suspended. Growing in age is not by itself a ground
which the courts ought to take into consideration in such cases
where demonstrable violence has been caused as an ultimate
result in the matrimonial home leading to the death of a woman
three years after marriage due to more than 90 per cent burns.
The accused persons are not offenders for the first time. They
stand convicted even in the prior case in which the earlier wife of
the first accused was dead under similar circumstances.

6. We, therefore, do not find any ground to extend any
measure of concession on humanitarian grounds, but would
leave open to the government to consider the request that these
two appellants, namely, appellant nos.2 and 3, may make from
time to time for grant of parole or other reliefs as may be found
necessary in the circumstances of the case. We also are sure that
the correctional home authorities will take adequate care of the
health and well-being of the applicants as well.

7. For the following reasons, we do not find any ground to
enlarge the applicants on bail at this point of time.

8. The application being CRAN 2610 of 2019 is dismissed.

9. Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent photostat
certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon
compliance of all necessary formalities.


( Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J. )

( Arijit Banerjee, J. )

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation