Procedure; vs In Re: Jahanara @ Jahanur Bibi
2021 Latest Caselaw 4401 Cal

25.08.21                              CRA No.347 of 2019
 (S.R.)                                       with
 Sl.11                    CRAN No.2 of 2020 (Old CRAN No.388 of 2020)
 Ct.30                              (Via video conference)

In re: An application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

And In re: Jahanara @ Jahanur Bibi ... appellant/petitioner.

Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick Mr. Ramdulal Manna Mr. Sudeshna Das Mr. Sayan Mukherjee ... for the appellant/petitioner.

           Mr. Rana Mukherjee, APP
           Mr. Santanu Chatterjee                 ... for the State.

This is an application for an order of suspension of sentence

and for grant of bail pending appeal against an order of conviction and

sentence. The petitioner/appellant has been convicted of offence

under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Mallick, learned advocate appearing for the

appellant/petitioner submits that it would be explicit from the judgment

impugned in the present appeal that the appellant was on bail during

trial. The appellant has not misused such liberty. There is also no

possibility towards early disposal of the present appeal and in view

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

enlarged on bail on any stringent condition.

He submits that entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence

and the guilt of the appellant had not been established by the

prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In support of such contention, he

has placed reliance upon the deposition of PW 7.

He argues that the material evidence on record prima facie does

not disclose any motive. Such absence of motive weighs in favour of the

appellant. In the said conspectus, it cannot be said that the appellant

has no chance of success in the present appeal.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes

the appellant's prayer and submits that when the learned trial court has

arrived at a finding as regards the guilt of the appellant on the basis of

evidence on record, a different view cannot be taken at this stage on the

basis of the self-same evidence.

He further submits that the appellant's prayer for suspension of

sentence was also rejected by a co-ordinate bench of this Court earlier.

We have assessed the quality of evidence on record and have

perused the earlier order dated 30th September, 2019 by which the

appellant's prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected. Prima facie,

the judgment impugned does not suffer from any patent infirmity. We

also do not find any substantial change in the circumstances subsequent

to rejection of the appellant's prayer for suspension of sentence on 30 th

September, 2019. 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 appellant.

The application being CRAN No.2 of 2020 (Old CRAN No.388 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.)