p.d. CRAN No.4081 of 2016
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.
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
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
this application orally on the strength of the available materials on
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
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
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.)