Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Sessions Trial No. 111(Xii)2 vs In Re : Rajesh Ghosh - on 10 June, 2013
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 39. 0-06-13
gn.
CRA No. 369 of 2012 With CRAN No. 3677 of 2012 Re : An application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being CRAN No. 3677 of 2012 filed on 04.12.2012 in connection with Sessions Case No. 28(8)2011 (Sessions Trial No. 111(xii)2011.
And
In Re : Rajesh Ghosh - appellant
Mr. Sudipta Moitra ... for the appellant
Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, ld. APP ... for the State
This is an application for suspension of sentence arising out of an order of conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, where the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, where the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine with default clause.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment as well as the certified copy of the depositions of the witnesses produced before us.
This is a case where the victim housewife died an unnatural death within a year of her marriage. In the trial, the appellant who happened to be her husband, was charged under Section 304B and alternatively under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately he was convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
Going through the impugned judgment we find that the prosecution case is entirely based on the evidence of PW 1, the father of the victim and her mother, PW 2. The material portion of those two witnesses was noted in the judgment at page 2. We find that during cross-examination, the PW 1 admitted that during investigation he has not 2 disclosed to the Investigating Officer that there was any demand or any further demand of money and after the marriage the accused persons used to tell his daughter to commit suicide so that they could arrange his re-marriage. He also did not disclose in the FIR that this appellant demanded money from him. Whereas the PW 2 in her cross- examination admitted that she was never examined by the Investigating Officer of the case during the trial. It is also pointed out to us by the learned Counsel for the appellant that during trial the learned judge in respect of two hostile witnesses, namely, PW 6 and PW 8 relied on their statement to the police to record the order of conviction.
We have also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on this score. Having regard to the fact as aforesaid, in our opinion, a prima facie case has been made showing possibilities of success in appeal. Moreover, this is a case of term imprisonment. Appellant was all through on bail during the trial and no allegation is forthcoming that he ever misused his liberty.
Accordingly, we direct pending hearing of the appeal, the order of sentence shall remain suspended and the appellant be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia on a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each, one of whom must be local.
The application for bail being CRAN No. 3677 of 2012 is, thus, disposed of. Already we find that appeal is ready for hearing and this is a case of crime against woman. Therefore, this matter be added in the list for week hence.
It goes without saying whatever has been observed hereinabove must not be construed as our opinion on the merit of the appeal and we make it clear those observations have been made only on prima facie consideration of the evidence on record just for deciding the question of suspension of sentence.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J.) 3