SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

The Case Of The Atul Tripathi vs State Of U.P on 4 April, 2017

1

54 4.4.2017
p.d. CRAN No.4081 of 2016
in
CRA No.561 of 2016

In re:- Buddhadeb Bairagya Ors. … Appellants.

Re: An application for suspension of sentence being CRAN
No.4081/2016 affirmed on 5.10.2016 in connection with Sessions Trial
No.14 (11) of 2016 corresponds to Sessions Case No.57 (7) of 2015.
Mr. S. S. Sarkar,
Ms. Tanusri Chanda,
Ms. Rama Ghosh Dastidar … For the appellants.

Mr. Sudip Ghosh,
Mr. Apurba Kr. Dutta …. For the State.

In a sessions trial, the four appellants, namely, Buddhadeb

Bairagya, the husband, Kalpana Bairagya, the mother-in-law, Sonamoni

Bairagya and Sakhi Bairagya, the sisters-in-law of the victim housewife

were convicted and while the present appellant No.1 was convicted

under Sections 304B/498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and simple imprisonment for 3

years respectively thereunder and to pay fines with default clauses, the

appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 were also convicted under Sections 304B/498A

of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment

10 years and simple imprisonment for 3 years respectively thereunder

and to pay fines with default clauses.

Now, after the appeal being admitted, with the liberty granted

admitting the appeal, they have now approached this Court for

suspension of sentence and their release on bail.
2

This case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence.

Although according to the father of the victim housewife, there

was demand of dowry by these appellants and on the failure to satisfy

such demand, the victim was subjected to torture at her matrimonial

home by them and finally, being unable to bear such torture, she was

compelled to commit suicide by hanging but the mother of the victim

housewife, in her evidence, has not made any such allegation.

Furthermore, according to the co-villagers, who were examined as

P.W.2 and P.W.3, in their cross-examination, admitted that the victim

had a love affairs with one boy of the same village and against her

consent, she was given in marriage with the appellant No.1, Buddhadeb

Bairagya and the relation between the victim and her in-laws, was very

cordial. However, those two witnesses, admittedly were not declared

hostile.

At this stage, before taking any decision in the matter, since

objection was raised vehemently from the side of the State, we accorded

an opportunity to Mr. Sudip Ghosh, the learned Counsel, who is

appearing with Mr. Apurba Kr. Dutta, the learned Counsel, to file his

written objection in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of the Atul Tripathi -Vs- State of U.P., reported in (2014) 9

SCC 177, and in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 389

Cr.P.C. but he declined to file the same in writing and intended to resist
3

this application orally on the strength of the available materials on

record.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as well

as the learned Counsel for the State.

We have gone through impugned judgment as also the copy of

the depositions of the witnesses produced before us and the other

materials on record.

Now, having regard to above and considering the findings on

which the impugned order is based and the grounds on which the same

is under challenge, we are of the opinion that the appellants have made

out a prima facie case showing their possibilities of successes in the

appeal.

Accordingly, we direct that pending hearing of the appeal, the

order of execution of sentence shall remain suspended and the

appellants shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-

each with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each for each of the appellants, one

of whom must be local.

The application for suspension of sentence being CRAN

No.4081 of 2016 is, thus, disposed of.

Office is directed to once again call for the LCR, if the same

have not yet been received by it and after receiving the same, the
4

department concerned is directed to prepare the requisite number of

paper books within six months thereafter and as soon as the preparation

of paper books is complete and the appeal is made ready for hearing, the

same shall be placed for hearing before the appropriate Bench.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, 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