1

141 23.09.2019

C.R.A. 30 of 2017
AB/ With
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

pending trial.

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
2

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.)