Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dhananjoy Biswas & Ors vs Unknown on 24 February, 2021
3 24.02.2021 (Through Video Conference)
dd/aloke
CRA 317 of 2016
with
IA No. CRAN 4 of 2020 (Old CRAN 1912 of 2020)
with
IA No. CRAN 5 of 2021
In the matter of: Dhananjoy Biswas & Ors. .....Appellants
Mr. Subir Debnath, Adv.
... For the appellant in CRAN 1912 of 2020
Mr. Prabir Majumder, Adv.
... For the appellant in CRAN 5 of 2021
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, ld. APP
Ms. Sujata Das,Adv.
... ...For the State
In re: IA No. CRAN 4 of 2020 (Old CRAN 1912 of 2020)
This is an application filed by the 8th appellant in CRA 317
of 2016 who is accused no. 8 in Sessions Trial No. II(March)2013
arising out of Sessions Case No. 112 (02) 2013, in the court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Nabadwip, Nadia. Through this
application the applicant raises the plea that he was a juvenile as
on the date of occurrence of the incident, on the basis of which
the criminal case was taken up. He, accordingly, prays that the
order of conviction and sentence handed down as against him by
the court of sessions would not stand.
We notice that the applicant had not raised the plea of
juvenility before the trial court. Be that as it may, we permit him
to raise that issue through this application filed before this Court
in this appeal. However, consideration of the plea raised through
that application cannot be decided without following the rules of
evidence and subjecting the plea to an adjudication by the
competent authority. The trial court being the authority
competent to consider the evidence in a wholesome manner, we
direct that the application being IA No. CRAN 4 of 2020 (Old CRAN
1912 of 2020) be transmitted by the registry to the court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Nabadwip, Nadia which will look into
that application and also any further application which may be
presented by or on behalf of the applicant (8th appellant) before
that court on the strength of this order. If the applicant moves
that court for adjudication of the issue as to his juvenility and
offers evidence in terms of law, the court below will consider that
and send up a report regarding the juvenility of 8 th accused,
namely, Baban Majumder @ Rajesh Mazumdar on the date of
occurrence, i.e. 17.06.2012, which led to Sessions Trial No.
II(March)2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 112 (02) 2013, in
the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nabadwip, Nadia.
The trial court will make all endeavour to make available
the report within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt
of this order.
Let the report as called for be transmitted to this Court
within a month.
IA No. CRAN 4 of 2020 (Old CRAN 1912 of 2020) is, thus,
disposed of in so far as this Court is concerned.
In re: IA No. CRAN 5 of 2021
This is an application for suspension of sentence pending
appeal and grant of bail preferred by the appellant nos. 1 to 7 in
this appeal. As regards the appellant no. 8, we have issued a
separate order on an independent application seeking to raise the
plea of juvenility.
After arguing this application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail pending appeal, learned counsel for the
appellants sought leave to make better submissions at a later
point of time.
We think that ends of justice would be better subserved if
this application is deferred for consideration after the receipt of
report from the trial court regarding the plea of juvenility of the
8th appellant. We do so because we are of the considered opinion
that in such case the appeal itself could be heard out finally. We
take recourse to this after perusing the impugned judgment, the
quality of findings and in the backdrop of the nature of injuries
proved and the evidence on record.
This application will stand deferred for further
consideration as stated above.
Let this matter appear on 23.03.2021.
[Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J]
[Arijit Banerjee, J.]
