SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kumud Barman @ Kumod Barman @ Lalu vs In Re:- Hosnahara Bibi on 2 May, 2017




CRAN 3314 of 2016
CRA 476 of 2016

In re:- An application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973


In the matter of:- Kumud Barman @ Kumod Barman @ Lalu

.. Appellants (In Jail)

Mr.Himangshu De
Mr.Navanil De. .. for the appellants.

Mr.Neguive Ahmed, Ld.APP.

Mr.Arindam Sen.

In a sessions trial, the appellants were convicted under sections

302/376(g)/201/34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life,

rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 3 years respectively with fine and

default clause.

After the appeal being admitted and with the leave granted by the

court admitting the appeal, they have now approached this court for

suspension of sentence.

The learned advocate for the appellants first draws our attention to

the statements of the post-mortem doctor, who was examined during the

trial as PW 7 and further submits that this witness has never deposed to

the effect that the victim was either raped or suffered homicidal death and

consequently, the order of conviction cannot be sustained.

He further submits that one of the circumstances on which the

court relied on is the circumstance of ‘last seen together’ and that is only

against the appellant no.1. he further submits that, in this regard, two

witnesses were examined, who are PWs 5 and 6 and both the witnesses

although were the local persons, but they were examined one month after

the alleged occurrence and both admitted in cross-examination the fact

that they saw the victim and the appellant no.1 going together on the

fateful night, were not disclosed to the police.

It be noted that we have given an opportunity to the learned

advocate for the State to file written objection in the light of the decision of

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

However, he declined to file the same and submits that it would be

enough for him to argue this case on the basis of the merit already on

record and could not meet the points raised before us.

Having regard to above and considering the findings on which the

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

challenge, we are of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made

out showing possibility of success in appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, the order of execution of

sentence be suspended and the appellants be released on bail to the

satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur at

Raiganj upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of

Rs.5,000/- each, one of who must be local.

The application for suspension of sentence, being CRAN 3314 of

2016, stands disposed of.

The office is directed to call for the Lower Court Record, if not as

yet called for. If the record is already there, then the paper book shall be

prepared within 6 months from this date of within 6 months from the date

of arrival of the record and immediately after the preparation of the paper

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

listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing, as and when the business

of such court shall permit.


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

given to the parties on usual undertaking.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)


CRM No.3694 of 2017

In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 27.04.2017 in connection with Panrui Police Station Case
No.21 of 2017 dated 07.03.2017 under sections 498A/307/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and sections 34 of DP Act.


In Re:- Hosnahara Bibi… Petitioner

Md.Sabir Ahmed… for the petitioner

Mr.Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld PP
Mr.Partha Pratim Das … for the State.

Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the

parties. Perused the case diary.

The petitioner is the mother-in-law. She is in custody for

about 57 days.

It is an admitted position that few days back, her prayer for

bail was rejected.

The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that she is a

physically handicapped lady and the father-in-law has been granted

anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court.

On the other-hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court,

Calcutta opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the mother-in-

law may be physically handicapped lady, but, according to the

statement of the victim made before her attending doctor at the

hospital, she implicated the present petitioner as one of the persons,

who along with her husband set her on fire.

Now, considering the nature and seriousness of the allegation

and the materials collected during investigation and the gravity of the

offence, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for bail.

Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected at this


(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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