In Re: Digen Mandal vs The State Of
2021 Latest Caselaw 4264 Cal

                                      CRA No.69 of 2020
                                             with
16.08.21

CRAN No.1 of 2020 (S.R.) (Via video conference) Sl.16 Ct.30 In re: An application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

And In re: Digen Mandal ... appellant/petitioner.

Mr. Tapan Datta Gupta Mr. Parvej Anam ... for the appellant/petitioner.

                 Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherji
                 Mr. Partha Pratim Das
                 Mrs. Manasi Roy                        ... for the State.

The appellant/petitioner in CRA 69 of 2020 has preferred the

present application being CRAN 1 of 2020 praying for an order of

suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal. The petitioner

has been convicted of offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Mr. Datta Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the

appellant/petitioner submits that the petitioner has been sentenced to a

term imprisonment of ten years and he had already suffered incarceration

for nearly six years. There is also no possibility towards early disposal of

the present appeal and in the said conspectus, the petitioner's sentence

may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail on any stringent

condition.

He argues that the ingredients of Section 6 of the POCSO Act do not

stand established against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. There

are also fatal contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses. Even after nothing such contradictions, the learned court

below disregarded the same, without any valid reason. In view thereof, it

cannot be said that the petitioner has no chance of success in the present

appeal. In support of his arguments, Mr. Datta Gupta has placed reliance

upon a judgment delivered in the case of Rahim Beg & Ors. v. The State of

U.P., reported in AIR 1973 SC 343.

Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the

petitioner's prayer and submits that when the learned court below upon

assessment of the evidence on record has convicted the petitioner, a

different view cannot be taken at this stage upon reassessment of the

same evidence.

We have assessed the quality of evidence recorded by the learned

court below. Prima facie, the judgment does not suffer from any patent

infirmity. Having regard to the severity of the offence and the strength of

the prosecution case, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in

favour of the petitioner.

The application being CRAN No.1 of 2020 is, accordingly, 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.)