Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure; vs In Re: Saiful Khan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4685 Cal

                                     CRAN No.1 of 2020
                                             in
08.09.21

CRA No.152 of 2020 (S.R.) Via video conference Sl.16 Ct.30 In Re: An application for suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

And In re: Saiful Khan ... appellant/petitioner.

                 Mr. Sujoy Sarkar                     ... for the appellant.

                 Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherji, Ld.PP
                 Mr. Partha Pratim Das
                 Mrs. Manasi Roy                            ... for the State.

This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of

bail pending appeal against an order of conviction and sentence. The

appellant/petitioner has been convicted of offences punishable under

Sections 376(1)/417/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections

4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short

'the POCSO Act').

Mr. Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for the

appellant/petitioner submits that the appellant has been falsely

implicated. There are fatal inconsistencies in the depositions of the

prosecution witnesses. Even after noting such inconsistencies, the

learned court below disregarded the same, without any cogent reason.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the depositions of PW 5,

PW 6 and PW 7, Mr. Sarkar submits that the prosecution has

miserably failed to establish the guilt against the appellant beyond

reasonable doubt. There is no evidence on record as regards drawal of

blood samples from the victim lady and the appellant. In view thereof,

it cannot be urged that the appellant has no chance of success in the

present appeal.

He further submits that the appellant was on bail in course of

trial and he has not misused such liberty. There is also no possibility

towards early disposal of the appeal and in view thereof, the

appellant's sentence may be suspended and he may be enlarged on

bail on any stringent condition.

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

appellant's prayer and submits that after DNA test it was established

that the appellant was the biological father of the female child of the

victim lady. 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.

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and have assessed the quality of the evidence as

recorded by the learned court below. Prima facie, we do not find any

patent infirmity in the judgment impugned. Having regard to the

severity of the offence and the strength of the prosecution case, we are

not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the appellant.

Accordingly, the application being CRAN No.1 of 2020 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.)