Procedure; vs In Re: Chinibas Karmakar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4103 Cal

                                       CRA No.420 of 2019
                                              with
06.08.21

CRAN No.1 of 2021 (S.R.) Via video conference Sl.18 Ct.30 In re: An application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

And In re: Chinibas Karmakar ... appellant/petitioner.

Mr. Sandip Chakraborty Mr. Soumik Ganguli ... for the appellant/petitioner.

                   Mr. Neguive Ahmed
                   Ms. Amita Gaur                               ... for the State.

This is an application for an order of suspension of sentence and

grant of bail during pendency of the appeal against an order of

conviction and sentence. The appellant/petitioner has been convicted

of offences under Sections 4/12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal

Code.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the

appellant/petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated. There was a dispute between the family members of the

parties, as would be explicit from the depositions of the prosecution

witnesses.

According to him, there are fatal contradictions in the depositions

of the prosecution witnesses and even after noting such contradictions

and inconsistencies, the learned court below disregarded the same,

without any reason. In support of such contention, he has drawn the

attention of this Court to the deposition of the victim girl, being the PW

3 and the deposition of the doctor, being the PW 18. In the said

conspectus, he argues that the appellant has every chance of success

in the present appeal.

He submits that the appellant has already suffered incarceration

for a long period of six years nine months and there is also no

possibility towards early disposal of the present appeal. In view

thereof, the appellant's sentence may be suspended and he may be

enlarged on bail on any stringent condition.

Ms. Gaur, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the

appellant's prayer and drawing the attention of this court to the

contents of the judgment, she submits that the sequence of events

clearly establishes the involvement of the appellant in the alleged

offence and in view thereof, the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs,

as prayed for.

We have assessed the quality of evidence recorded by the learned

court below. Prima facie, we do not find any patent infirmity in the

order of conviction. Having regard to the severity of the offence and the

strength of the prosecution case, we are of the opinion that this is not a

fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Accordingly, the application being CRAN No.1 of 2021 is

dismissed.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)