Babulal Das And Others vs The State Of West Bengal
2023 Latest Caselaw 627 Cal

 D/L18                                  C.R.R.905 of 2021
19.01.2023

Bpg.

In Re: An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

Babulal Das and others Versus The State of West Bengal

Mr. Prabir Majumder, Mr. S. Majumder, Mr. S. Chakraborty.

...for the petitioners.

Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mr. Sanjib Kr. Dan.

...for the State.

The subject-matter of challenge relates to the judgment

and order of conviction being affirmed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Nadia at Krishnagar in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2017 by its

order dated 24.02.2020. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nadia at Krishnagar in connection with G.R. Case No.1811 of 2002

arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No.515 of 2002 dated

28.10.2002 under Sections 325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal

Code was pleased to convict four accused persons. The present

petitioners before this Court are Babulal Das, Sukdeb Das @ Sudeb

Das and Joydev Das. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on

conclusion of the trial was pleased to hold these three persons

guilty of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six

months each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer

further simple imprisonment for another 15 days. Against the said

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the

learned CJM, Nadia at Krishnagar dated 13.09.2017, the petitioners

preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2017, the

learned appellate court was pleased to affirm the order of conviction

and sentence by its judgment dated 24.02.2020 and dismissed the

appeal.

Mr. Prabir Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioners submits that the incident was of October, 2002 and

more than 20 years have passed since the incident took place and

the petitioners presently are aged. Additionally, it has been

submitted that after the sentence was pronounced by the learned

CJM, Nadia at Krishnagar and during the pendency of the appeal,

the present petitioners suffered custody for about 70 days.

Mr. Arijit Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the

State supports the judgment delivered by the learned CJM, Nadia at

Krishnagar as also the judgment of the appellate court. Learned

advocate submits that there are concurrent findings of facts passed

by both the courts below and, as such, this Court should not

interfere so far as the findings are concerned as the petitioners have

not been able to show any manifest error appearing in the records.

I have considered the submissions and also taken into

account the period for which mental agony has been suffered by the

present petitioners. Having regard to the subject-matter of the case

and the concurrent findings of facts, I am not inclined to interfere

with the findings of guilt so imposed by the learned trial court as

well as the learned appellate court. However, having regard to the

period and the fact that the alleged offence was committed on

October, 2002 and more than 20 years have passed since then, I am

compelled to hold that it would be unwise to send these persons to

prison after such a considerable period of time. Accordingly, the

sentence so imposed by the learned trial court as also affirmed by

the learned appellate court is reduced to the period which has

already been undergone by them.

With the aforesaid observations, CRR 905 of 2021 is

disposed of.

Pending application, if any, is consequently disposed of.

Department is directed to send back the Lower Court

Records immediately.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite

formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)