Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court recently suspended the sentence of a woman who was accused for murdering her six-year-old step-daughter by poisoning.

A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray observed that it is not a case in which she had no possibility of succeeding at the final hearing of the appeal. Since the appeal is pending, her conviction had not attained finalities.

“There is no certainty of the appeal being finally decided at an early date given the large number of cases pending, and also on an overall appreciation and assimilation of the nature and quality of the evidence on record, we deem it appropriate to suspend the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on the applicant by the learned trial Court and grant bail to the applicant,” the court added.

In this case, the woman herein applicant filed an appeal against the judgment dated December 20, 2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Kandi which convicted the woman for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

The woman had been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for 6 months.

Accordingly, the woman through her appeal filed before this present court prayed for suspension of her sentence.

The Counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out that as per the sister-in-law of the applicant, the incident of the applicant offering poisoned sweets to the victim girl occurred around 11 a.m. on a relevant day, but according to the applicant’s husband brother’s wife herein PW7, the incident occurred around 11.30 a.m./12 p.m which shows the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.

Further, the Counsel also highlighted that although PW7 had claimed that she was residing in the house adjacent to where the applicant and her husband lived, the same does not appear from the sketch map prepared by the Investigating Officer.

Furthermore, the counsel submitted that there is a good chance that the applicant will succeed at the final hearing of the appeal. She had been in jail for more than 6 years and 3 months. She should be released on bail on conditions the court may deem fit and proper.

The advocate appearing for the State stated that discrepancies in the evidence on record that had been referred to by the advocate for the applicant are minor. Such inconsequential discrepancies would not affect the merit of the decision of the Trial Judge. On a careful analysis of the evidence on record, Trial Judge had found the applicant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Killing a six-year-old child by feeding her poisoned sweets is a heinous crime. The applicant does not deserve bail. Hearing of the appeal may be expedited.

The court after hearing the arguments relied on the judgments of Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, reported (1977), Akhtari Bi (Smt) v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001), Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 7 and Hussain & Anr. V. Union of India, (2017).

The court said, “She had spent about six and a half years in incarceration. Nobody can say with any certainty when the appeal will be finally decided. If the appeal succeeds at whatever future point of time indeed, no one will be able to compensate the applicant for the time lost in jail because of conviction for a crime that she has not committed.”

Further, the court also ordered that the applicant will furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge Kandi.

Also, she will not leave the jurisdiction of the police station within which she will reside.

Accordingly, the bench suspended the sentence of the applicant.

Case Title: Naju Bibi @ Narjina Bibi v The State of West Bengal