Procedure; vs In Re: Basudeb Roy @ Basu Roy & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3974 Cal

                                     CRA No.223 of 2017
                                            with
27.07.21

CRAN No.2 of 2021 (S.R.) Via video conference Sl.11 Ct.30 In re: An application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

And In re: Basudeb Roy @ Basu Roy & Anr.

... appellants/petitioners.

Mr. Ankit Agarwala Mr. Subir Debnath ... for the appellants/petitioners.

                 Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta, APP
                 Ms. Z.N. Khan
                 Ms. Trina Mitra                              ... for the State.

The appellants in CRA No.223 of 2017 has preferred the present

CRAN No.2 of 2021 for suspension of sentence imposed by the learned

court below by judgement and order dated 27th March, 2015 and 30th

March, 2015. The appellants/petitioners have been convicted of

offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been

sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in

default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further five months.

Mr. Agarwala, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners

submits that there are apparent inconsistencies in the testimonies of

the PW 1 and the PW 9 being the doctor, who conducted the post-

mortem. Such contradiction though noted by the court below was

disregarded without any appropriate reason. The chain of

circumstances leading to the alleged incident is also not complete, as

would be explicit from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. In

view thereof, there is every chance of success in the present appeal.

He further submits that the petitioners were all along on bail

during trial and there is also no possibility towards early disposal of the

present appeal.

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

petitioners' prayer and submits that there are materials on record,

which clearly reveal the direct involvement of the petitioners in the

alleged offence. The learned court below upon discussing the evidence

on record had arrived at a finding of guilt and in the said conspectus,

the petitioners are not entitled to the relief, as prayed for.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the contents of the

judgment delivered by the learned court below, Mr. Dutta submits that

the bail initially granted to the petitioners herein was cancelled

subsequently.

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective

parties and considered the materials on record.

Having regard to the materials, which form the basis of the order

of conviction and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the

petitioners, the severity of the offence and the strength of the

prosecution case, we do not find any compelling reason to suspend the

sentence of the petitioners and to grant them bail.

Accordingly, the application being CRAN No.2 of 2021 is

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.)