C.R.A. 30 of 2017
SDE Court No.1
C.R.A.N. 4436 of 2017
In the matter of : Pijush Kanti Mishra …Appellant.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Pravas Bhattacharya …for the Appellant.
Mr. S. G. Mukherjee, Ld. PP,
Mr. Partha Pratim Das …for the State.
In re : CRAN 4436 of 2017
We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant in this
application seeking suspension of sentence in connection with an appeal
against an order of conviction and sentence for offence punishable under
Section 304B IPC and different other provisions.
2. We have examined the contents of the judgment and order as well as
the assimilation of evidence, passed by the Court of Session and the
conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge which led to the acquittal
of seven of the accused persons and conviction of the first accused. We may
also notice that, initially, nine persons were arrayed, of whom one died
3. The learned senior counsel for the appellant persuasively pointed out
that the statement on the basis of which the case was initiated would show
that there is no reasonable nexus to the so-called demand of dowry, at or
around the time of the wedding between the victim and the appellant on
2.3.2012 and the death of the victim on 25.5.2013.
4. While the First Information Report starts with reference to the demand
of dowry and the outstanding unsatisfied demand for a four-wheeler vehicle, it
proceeds to say that the victim went back to her maternal home for the Bengali
New Year and the statement made by her at that point of time to her parents
and near relatives was to the effect that she was being tortured on account of
her not begetting a child.
5. On the aforesaid basis, the learned senior counsel for the appellant
pointed out that there would not be any reasonable nexus to the so-called
demand of dowry stated to have been made at the initial stage in relation to
the marriage leading to any actuation of suicide, which is illogically connected
through a chain of events to inculpate the first accused while all the other
accused persons have been acquitted.
6. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the factual matrix for
the purpose of considering this application for suspension of sentence and
noticing the ingredients of Sectionsections 498A/Section304B as well as the ingredients of
Sectionsections 302/Section306 of the Indian Penal Code, we are of the considered opinion
that, taking into consideration the weight of the presumptions available in law,
the conviction and sentence handed down on the appellant (first accused)
cannot be prima facie treated as unavailable and the sentence imposed on the
accused does not deserve to be suspended now.
7. We, therefore, dismiss this application for suspension of sentence
preserving the right of the appellant to move for such relief as may be available
with the passage of time.
8. CRAN 4436 of 2017 is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Paper Books be prepared within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of Lower Court Records and the appeal be listed for hearing as soon as
Paper Books are ready.
10. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J.)
( Manojit Mandal, J.)