In Re : Parthana Ghosh vs State Of Punjab
2021 Latest Caselaw 4444 Cal

31.08.2021 Court No.30

Avijit Mitra C.R.A. No.664 of 2018 with CRAN No. 2 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN 4517 of 2019) (Via video Conference)

In Re:- Application for suspension of sentence under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of Sessions Trial No.01(01) of 2018 ;

And In Re : Parthana Ghosh Appellant/Petitioner Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Ali Hasan Alamgir, Ms. Rabia Khatoon 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 for grant of bail pending appeal against an order of conviction

and sentence. The appellant has been convicted of offence under

section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC).

Mr. Sabir Ahmed, learned advocate appearing for the

appellant/petitioner submits that there were five accused persons

and on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned court

below acquitted four but on the basis of the self-same evidence,

the appellant was convicted and she is in custody for about five

years. There is also no possibility towards early disposal of the

present appeal. In such circumstances, the appellant's sentence

may be suspended and she may be enlarged on bail on any

stringent condition.

He argues that there are fatal contradictions in the deposition

of the prosecution witnesses. Even after noting such

contradictions, the learned Court below disregarded the same

without any cogent reason. The staff nurse, who was present at

the time of recording of the purported dying declaration, was not

even examined by the prosecution. The statements made in the

dying declaration also do not tally with the version of the incident

as narrated by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. In view thereof, it cannot be

said that the appellant has no chance of success in the present

appeal. In support of such argument, reliance has been placed

upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Kashmira Singh. Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1977) 4

SCC 291.

Mr. Ahmed, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing

for the State opposes the appellant's prayer and submits that

when on the basis of the evidence on record the learned Court

below has arrived at a finding as regards the guilt of the appellant,

a different view cannot be taken, at this stage, on the basis of the

self-same evidence on record, more so when the appellant's prayer

was earlier rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 5 th

April, 2019. The mere fact that the appellant has suffered long

incarceration cannot per se be a ground for suspension of

sentence.

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and have assessed the quality of evidence

recorded by the learned Court below. Prima facie we do not find

any patent infirmity in the impugned judgment. There had been

no substantial change in the circumstances after the rejection of

the appellant's earlier prayer for suspension of sentence on 5 th

April, 2019.

For these reasons, we are not inclined to exercise any

discretion in favour of the appellant.

The application being CRAN No. 2 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN

4517 of 2019) is, accordingly, dismissed.

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

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rabindranath Samanta,J) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J)