In Re : Suvan Ali vs The State Of Pubjab
2021 Latest Caselaw 4445 Cal

31.08.2021 Court No.30 rpan/05

IA No.: CRAN No. 1 of 2016 [Old: CRAN 3533 of 2016] in C.R.A. No.611 of 2015

In Re : Suvan Ali

- Petitioner/Appellant Mr. Debabrata Roy, Ms. Karabi Roy ... for the Petitioner/Appellant.

Mr. Prasun Datta, ld. A.P.P.

Mr. Subrata Roy ... for the State

In the present application under Section 389 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the petitioner/appellant has prayed for

suspension of sentence imposed upon him by the learned Sessions

Judge, Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions Case no.93 of 2013 [Sessions

Trial No.05/2013]. The appellant has been convicted of offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner/appellant argues that the entire case is based upon

circumstantial evidence. Every link in the chain of circumstances,

necessary to prove the guilt of the accused appellant, has not been

established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The

circumstances involved do not consistently point towards the guilt

of the appellant/petitioner and the evidence on record would

reveal that the petitioner/appellant has been roped in on the basis

of mere suspicion.

He submits that the petitioner/appellant has already suffered

long incarceration for about eight years. The chance of disposal of

the present appeal in the near future is also very remote and as

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

enlarged on bail on any stringent condition.

Per contra, Mr. Datta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the State denies the contention of the

petitioner/appellant and submits that the evidence on record

sufficiently establishes the common unbroken chain of events,

pointing towards the guilt of the appellant, more so, when the

appellant was last seen together with the victim lady. There is

also no patent infirmity in the order of conviction of sentence. The

mere fact that the appellant has suffered long incarceration

cannot per se be a ground for suspension of sentence.

In the judgment impugned, it has inter alia been observed by

the learned court below that the de facto complainant, being the

P.W.1, in his evidence did not corroborate the contents of the

complaint lodged by him. The daughter of the victim lady, being

the P.W.2, did not support the prosecution case and was declared

hostile. It also appears from the judgment impugned that the

doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, was not examined by the

prosecution.

We have assessed the quality of evidence, recorded by the

learned court below. Prima facie, the said evidence on record is

not so infallible and accurate to clearly establish the guilt of the

appellant. The appellant has already suffered incarceration for

about eight years and there is no real likelihood of the present

appeal being heard in the near future. Keeping in view the

principles of law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Kashmira Singh Vs. The State of Pubjab, reported in

(1977) 4 SCC 291 and on an overall assessment of the facts and

circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant's

sentence may be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.

For these reasons, we allow the application, being IA No.:

CRAN No. 1 of 2016 [Old: CRAN 3533 of 2016], suspend the

sentence of the appellant and direct that pending hearing of the

appeal, the appellant, namely, Suvan Ali, shall be released on bail

upon furnishing a bond of `10,000/- with two sureties of like

amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj.

The application for suspension of sentence, being IA No.:

CRAN No. 1 of 2016 [Old: CRAN3533 of 2016] is, thus, disposed

of.

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.)