PRASANTA GHOSH @ BAPI Vs. STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1998-2-45
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on
February 13,1998
Prasanta Ghosh @ Bapi
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
UNION OF INDIA V. B.N. ANANTHA PADMANABAHAIAH [REFERRED TO]HETHUBHA ALIAS JITHUBA MADHUBA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT RAM STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN:RAM SWAROOP [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SINGH VS. MURARILAL [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P T APPAIAH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. DAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
TANVIBEN PANKAJKUMAR DIVETIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
B SUBBAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R.BHATTACHARYYA, J. -
(1.)BY an order dated 11.6.97, the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice directed the office to place the record of the Criminal Appeal before me for my opinion.
(2.)TO embark on an enquiry in order to ascertain from the record about the opinion, I have read through the judgment of Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1995 with Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 1995 delivered by their Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.A. Chowdhury and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P. Sircar -I along with the evidence and other materials on record.
(3.)IT is notorious to find from the judgment that there is consensus about the conviction which was affirmed by their Lordships but only on the question of sentence, since their Lordships could not arrive at a consensus, the opinion of this Court was accordingly sought for after having recourse to procedural law.
To peter all doubt about the point of difference I extract a few paragraphs from the judgment which will reveal the true state of affairs.
Considering the aforesaid principles, and that the death penalty should be very sparingly inflicted, I fail to agree with my learned Brother regarding the affirmation of the sentence of death of the appellant.
I, therefore, while affirming the conviction of the appellant under section 302, I.P.C. hold that the sentence of death of the Appellant should be commuted to the sentence of R.I. for life, in this case and Death Reference should be rejected. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed with commutation of the sentence as indicated above.
Since, I differ with my learned Brother regarding the sentence of the appellant, this appeal with our opinion as expressed above need be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for being laid before another Hon'ble Judge of this Court in accordance with the provisions of section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his opinion and the judgment to be followed on that opinion.
(Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.)
Let the matter be placed before the learned Acting Chief Justice for assignment of the matter before some other Hon'ble Judge in accordance with the provisions of section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.) (Debi Prasad Sircar -I, J.)
(2.)TO embark on an enquiry in order to ascertain from the record about the opinion, I have read through the judgment of Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1995 with Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 1995 delivered by their Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.A. Chowdhury and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P. Sircar -I along with the evidence and other materials on record.
(3.)IT is notorious to find from the judgment that there is consensus about the conviction which was affirmed by their Lordships but only on the question of sentence, since their Lordships could not arrive at a consensus, the opinion of this Court was accordingly sought for after having recourse to procedural law.
To peter all doubt about the point of difference I extract a few paragraphs from the judgment which will reveal the true state of affairs.
Considering the aforesaid principles, and that the death penalty should be very sparingly inflicted, I fail to agree with my learned Brother regarding the affirmation of the sentence of death of the appellant.
I, therefore, while affirming the conviction of the appellant under section 302, I.P.C. hold that the sentence of death of the Appellant should be commuted to the sentence of R.I. for life, in this case and Death Reference should be rejected. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed with commutation of the sentence as indicated above.
Since, I differ with my learned Brother regarding the sentence of the appellant, this appeal with our opinion as expressed above need be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for being laid before another Hon'ble Judge of this Court in accordance with the provisions of section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his opinion and the judgment to be followed on that opinion.
(Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.)
Let the matter be placed before the learned Acting Chief Justice for assignment of the matter before some other Hon'ble Judge in accordance with the provisions of section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.) (Debi Prasad Sircar -I, J.)
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.