AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for
Respondent No.1/State. This application has been filed under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and for
releasing the applicant on bail during the pendency of the related appeal.
Be it stated that, by the impugned judgment and order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Sessions
Case No.102/2012, appellant was convicted under Sections 449/302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as the substantive penalty.
We find from the record that first information was lodged by the informant P.W.4 stating that on 20.11.2008 at about 10 P.M., the accused had
trespassed into the residence of the victim who was his neighbor, whereafter he committed rape on her and finally set her on fire leading to her death.
On the basis of the first information, Silchar P.S. Case No.2403/08 was registered and, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
the appellant under Sections 448/354/307/302 I.P.C. At the time of framing of charge, Trial Court framed charges under Sections 449/376/302 I.P.C.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 21.09.2017, while the appellant was convicted and sentenced as above, he was acquitted of the charge
under Section 376 I.P.C.
From the impugned judgment and order, we find that in addition to the dying declaration of the victim, Court Witness (C.W.) No.1 Sri Prasad Rabidas
in his testimony had clearly identified the appellant as the person who had run away from the place of occurrence towards his house. According to the
testimony of C.W. No.1, at the place of occurrence i.e., the residence of the victim, he saw the victim in a burnt condition and she told him that it was
the appellant who had put her on fire and, thereafter, fled away.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that present is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and
for grant of bail to the appellant pending disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the prayer for suspension of sentence and for bail is rejected.
However, we make it clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the interlocutory application and shall not in
any manner be construed to be our final opinion on merit. Interlocutory application is dismissed.