Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ruksana Bibi vs Unknown on 3 August, 2016
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 88 03.08.2016
SK Court No.26 CRAN 1507 of 2016 In CRA 41 of 2016 In re: An application for bail under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being CRAN 1507 of 2016 filed on 16.03.2016 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 2(1) of 2012.
And In the matter of: Ruksana Bibi Appellant. Mr. Supratik Basu ......For the Appellant.
Mr. Partha Pratim Das ... For the State.
The appellant along with three others were placed on trial to answer charges for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366A/372/373 and 120B IPC. She was convicted under Sections 363/366A and 372 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years, 7 years and 1 year respectively with fine and default clause.
Now, after admission of appeal she has moved this court for suspension of sentence.
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered their respective submissions.
Going through the impugned judgement and the depositions of the witnesses filed with this application, we find that the present appellant was the co-villagers of the victim girl 2 and she, her husband and another took her to Kolkata for a pleasure trip and from there she was taken to Pune after intoxicating her with some food articles mixed with sedative. At Pune she was sold out to one of the co-accused, where in a building she was engaged in prostitution against her will. We further find from her evidence that one single day that is on the very first day she was forced to be ravished by 10 different customers.
Considering the above facts and the nature and seriousness of the allegations and the findings on which the order of conviction is based, we are not inclined to allow this application and, accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence being CRAN 1507 of 2016 stands rejected.
The maximum sentence that can be imposed against an order of conviction is R.I. for 10 years and the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC is also be punishable with the maximum imprisonment for 10 years.
Now, considering the background facts of the case, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case where show cause should be issued against the appellant calling upon her to answer why her sentence shall not be enhanced.
Let the show cause notice be served upon the appellant through the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3 Diamond Harbour and the reply, if any, be made returnable 4 weeks and be heard together with the appeal.
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 or 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, same shall be listed before the appropriate bench for hearing.
We find that in the trial three other persons were also convicted. Office is directed to enquire whether any appeal has been preferred on their behalf or not and to submit a report.
List it for further order on coming Friday (05.08.2016). Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)