Ranadip Banerjee vs Rinku

Re: CRAN 1075 of 2019

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

In this application the petitioner seeks suspension of sentence / bail pending consideration of his appeal against conviction and sentence handed down on a count of offence found punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The sole appellant is the brother of the victim.

Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the material evidence on record coupled with the statement rendered by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would clearly indicate that it is P.W. 3, Joydeep Banerjee, the first informant, who is the real culprit and that the chosen witnesses have been placed in such a way so as to inculcate the accused person. The evidence on record does not inspire confidence to sustain the order of conviction and sentence, it is argued.

We notice that the appellant is in prison for nearly 4 years and 4 months till now following his arrest and having not been granted bail pending trial.

P.W. 15 is the widow of the deceased in the sense that she was the estranged wife and the relationship between P.W. 15 and the victim was initially smooth. They have a son. Thereafter, P.W. 15 and the child as well as the victim started staying away from the parental home of the victim. With the passage of time, the victim developed certain neurological issues and had to be given continuous medical attention. According to P.W. 15, there was an arrangement under which the mother of the victim took up the responsibility to care for the victim in her home and P.W. 15 and her son was staying in a rented building. She goes on to say that she used to provide funds to support the treatment of the victim. However, with passage of time she stopped doing so since it was a matter of fact that the family of the husband was deriving rental income from properties.

We state all these from out of the evidence of P.W. 1 to satisfy ourselves. P.W. 15, the widow though had been living separately, was well aware of the affairs of the victim. It is she who has stated that it is P.W. 5, Champa who was attending the home of the victim taking care of his requirements as a maidservant or a nurse. The accused and the victim stayed together. On the fateful day, according to the testimony of P.W. 5, Champa, she saw the victim having suffered certain injuries to his back in the form of oozing bleedings. According to her, she asked the victim as to how he sustained such injuries and he answered her by pointing his finger to the room of the accused, who is the brother of the victim and was also staying in the said home. She, thereafter, bathed the victim and provided him with some medical care by putting Nebasulf and taking care of him appropriately. Thereafter, she conducted the regular puja in the home and left the premises. According to her, in the evening when she returned, the victim had again suffered injuries to the head and had oozing injuries and upon her asking the victim as to how he suffered such injuries, the victim answered again pointing out his finger to the room of the accused person.

The presence of P.W. 5 and her active involvement in affairs of the home in taking care of the victim is a matter of fact established even through the testimony of P.W. 15, the widow of the victim.

Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that P.W. 5 has stated in her evidence that she needs at least Rs. 20,000/-per month to take care of her daughter while she was having only Rs. 7000/- per month as her income. It is suggested that she would have falsely testified to make money. We are not impressed to uphold such a plea at this point of time where the totality of the basic evidence on record is limited against the accused person.

Reading the evidence of P.W. 15 and P.W. 5 together, we are unable to say that the suggestion in the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sufficient enough to take the view that there is a very strong prima facie case of P.W. 3 being the aggressor and the accused person being falsely implicated.

While we are not appreciating the evidence for the purpose of deciding the appeal in the final go, we are indicating the aforesaid only to place on record that we are satisfied that no ground is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail at this stage of the appeal.

Hence, CRAN 1075 of 2019 is dismissed.

Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.