The Code Of Criminal Procedure; vs In Re : Dilip Roy
2021 Latest Caselaw 4515 Cal

06.09.2021 Court No.30 Item No.29 Avijit Mitra C.R.A. No. 716 of 2019 with CRAN No. 2 of 2021 (Via video Conference)

In Re:- Application for suspension of sentence under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

And In Re : Dilip Roy Petitioner/Appellant Mr. Arindam Jana, Mr. Sumanta Das For the Appellant Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Mr. Suman De For the State

This is an application for an order of suspension of sentence

and grant of bail pending appeal against an order of conviction

and sentence. The petitioner/appellant herein has been convicted

of offences under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short,

IPC).

Mr. Jana, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner/appellant submits that there was a boundary dispute

between the parties. There is also a dispute as regards the place of

occurrence. Even after noting the inconsistencies in the deposition

of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Court below disregarded

the same, without any cogent reason. It would be explicit from the

deposition of the doctor that the victim was in a drunken state.

There is no perceptible nexus between the appellant and the

offence. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the

appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In view thereof, there is every

chance of success in the present appeal.

Mr. Jana further submits that the petitioner has already

suffered long incarceration for a substantial period of time and

there is also no possibility towards early disposal of the appeal

and in view thereof, the appellant may be enlarged on bail on any

stringent condition.

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

petitioner's prayer and submits that the materials on record

clearly establish the direct involvement of the appellant in the

alleged offence. On the basis of the evidence on record the learned

Court below has arrived at a finding as regards the guilt of the

appellant and at this stage, a different view cannot be taken on

the basis of the self-same evidence on record.

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. Having regard to

the severity of the offence and the strength of the prosecution

case, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

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.

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