Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nirmal Roy & Ors vs Unknown on 13 September, 2023
13.09.2023 CRA (DB) 112 of 2022
ML. 329 With
Court No.29
Suvayan
CRAN 1 of 2023
In Re: - An application for admission of appeal under Section 374
(2) of the Cr.P.C.
And
In the matter of: Nirmal Roy & Ors.
....appellants.
Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee
Mr. Supreem Naskar
Ms. Jayashree Patra
Ms. Ritushree Banerjee
Ms. Pritha Sinha
...for the appellants.
Mr. Neguive Ahmed, APP
Ms. Anita Gaur
...for the State.
In re: CRAN 1 of 2023
1.
Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.
2. The appellants were on bail during trial as submitted by
learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners. There is no
allegation of their flouting the conditions of bail during trial.
3. Considered the deposition of the witnesses including the
evidence of the daughter of the deceased examined as P.W. 6
and medical officer, P.W. 13. The death of the deceased is no
doubt a homicidal death.
4. So far as implication of the present appellants/petitioners are
concerned the same is based on circumstantial evidence as
the offence was committed within the four corner of the spot
room in the village house.
5. Present appellant/petitioner No. 1 is the elder brother-in-law
of the deceased, present appellant/petitioner No. 2 is the wife
of the present appellant/petitioner No. 1, present
appellant/petitioner No. 3 is the married sister-in-law of the
deceased.
6. Appellant/petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are staying in separate
mess in the same house where the deceased was staying with
her husband and mother-in-law. Appellant/petitioner No. 3
who is married elsewhere is stated to be staying in another
village away from the spot village. The mother-in-law of the
deceased has died in the meantime while in custody on
attaining the age of 90 years.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that even if the
circumstances put forth by the prosecution are believed to the
hilt then the onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act may
befall on the husband (who is not before us) or the mother-in-
law, who has since died as they were the persons who were
living with the deceased.
8. So far as the present appellants/petitioners are concerned it
is submitted that they having no interest either in the death
of the deceased or they having no gain out of such loss there
is no motive on their part.
9. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that
the evidence adduced by the prosecution is clinching to the
effect that though the present appellants/petitioners were
living in separate mess it was one unit of the same house and
there is evidence to the effect that they were meddling with
the affairs of the family of the deceased as found from the
evidence of the daughter of the deceased (P.W. 6) and other
neighbors.
10. Be that as it may, we do not see any chance of early disposal
of the present appeal. There is no chance of the
appellants/petitioners escaping the conviction in the event
the impugned judgment is affirmed.
11. Regard being had to such facts and submissions and
especially the nature of evidence as discussed (Supra), it is
directed that each of the appellants/petitioners shall be
released on bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur in connection with Sessions Trial
No. 18 (August) 2014 (R. 175 of 2017) on such terms and
conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case including the conditions that the
appellants/petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court to
suffer the sentence in the event the impugned judgment is
affirmed.
12. Accordingly, the interim application being CRAN 1 of 2023 is
disposed of.
(Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.)
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
