Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Parimal Bala vs Unknown on 23 April, 2024
23.04.2024.
86.
Ct.No.28
as
C.R.A. (DB) 307 of 2023
with
CRAN 1 of 2024
In Re: An application under Section 389(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
In the matter of : Parimal Bala.
... Appellant.
Mr. Arindam Jana,
Mr. Ranjan Chakraborti.
...for the Appellant.
Mrs. Amita Gour,
Ms. Debadrita Mondal.
...for the State.
1.Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits at the time of delivery of judgement his client was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but no charge had been framed on such score. As a result, his client was prejudiced and prays for suspension of sentence.
2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence. She submits trial court had framed charge under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Ingredients of Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code is pari materia to Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In our estimation, alteration of the said section did not change the substratum of the accusation and thereby prejudice the appellant.
3. Hence, we are of the opinion no case for suspension of sentence on such score is made out. Signed By : ALOK SETH High Court of Calcutta 25 th of April 2024 04:46:09 PM 2
4. Accordingly, the application being CRAN 1 of 2024 is dismissed.
4. Paper books be prepared within eight weeks from date.
5. Liberty to mention.
(Gaurang Kanth,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Signed By : ALOK SETH High Court of Calcutta 25 th of April 2024 04:46:09 PM