Chandramoy Das vs State

Re : CRAN 2610 of 2019

This is an application by two of the convicts who have along with their son filed CRA 392 of 2019 against the order of conviction and sentence imposed on them for offences found to be punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

This application is one by appellant nos.2 and 3 who are the parents of the first appellant, who had married the victim.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants who very persuasively pointed out that the totality of the evidence is insufficient to inculpate the parents of the first accused and the materials on record clearly show that they have a strong prima facie case in having their conviction set aside in this appeal. He further points out that the second appellant, who is the father of the first appellant, is 89 years of age and the third appellant, who is the mother of the first appellant, is 75 years of age and their age may be treated as an extenuating circumstance and ground to enlarge them on bail on humanitarian grounds.

We have bestowed our anxious consideration on the fairly lengthy judgment written by the court below. We notice that the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 have been found to be reliable and corroborating each other on material particulars regarding the demand for dowry and also physical and mental torture on the victim. The death occurred about three years after the marriage. PW 1, the defacto complainant, is the brother of the victim and PW 2 is the father of the victim. The assimilation of their testimony by the court below reflects cogent consideration of all relevant aspects. Bearing in mind the mandatory presumption prescribed by law as per Section 113B of the Evidence Act, we cannot but hold that we are not satisfied that the applicants have demonstrated a strong prima facie case that this appeal would end up in acquittal.

We have also given our anxious consideration to the age factor of the applicants. The appellant no.2 being 89 years of age and the appellant no.3 being 75 years of age, are the parents of the first accused who married the victim. The death resulted out of 90 per cent or more of burn injuries on the victim which occurred three years after the marriage. It is also a matter of record that the parents are accused in a similar case relating to the death of the girl whom the first accused had married earlier. They were convicted in that case. Learned counsel for the appellants points out that insofar as that criminal case is concerned, the appeal is pending before the Court and sentence has been suspended. Growing in age is not by itself a ground which the courts ought to take into consideration in such cases where demonstrable violence has been caused as an ultimate result in the matrimonial home leading to the death of a woman three years after marriage due to more than 90 per cent burns. The accused persons are not offenders for the first time. They stand convicted even in the prior case in which the earlier wife of the first accused was dead under similar circumstances.

We, therefore, do not find any ground to extend any measure of concession on humanitarian grounds, but would leave open to the government to consider the request that these two appellants, namely, appellant nos.2 and 3, may make from time to time for grant of parole or other reliefs as may be found necessary in the circumstances of the case. We also are sure that the correctional home authorities will take adequate care of the health and well-being of the applicants as well.

For the following reasons, we do not find any ground to enlarge the applicants on bail at this point of time.

The application being CRAN 2610 of 2019 is dismissed.

Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent photostat certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.