Advocate

WB/1178/2007
Enrolment No.
Through
District: Purba Medinipur
In The High Court at Calcutta
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
(Appellate Side)
C.R.A.N. No. of 2024
In the matter of:
C.R.A. (D.B.) 378 OF 2023
In the matter of:
An application for bail under
Section 389 (1) of The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 in
connection with an appeal being
C.R.A. (D.B.) 378 OF 2023.
-And-
In the matter of:
Order dated 09th January, 2024
passed by The Hon’ble Justice
Joymalya Bagchi sitting with The
Hon’ble Justice Gaurang Kanth
thereby admitting the appeal being
C.R.A. (D.B.) 378 OF 2023 in
connection with order and
Judgment of conviction dated
22.08.2023 and 23.08.2023 passed
by the Court of the Learned
Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court - II,
Tamluk, Purba Midnapore in
Sessions Case No. 24 (January)
/2017 - S.T. No.4(2)/2017 - thereby
convicting your appellants under
2

Sections 302/120B of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and another
person under Sections 302/201 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentencing your appellants to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for life and
to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in
default, to suffer further Rigorous
Imprisonment for 1 year more for
the offences punishable, and also
Liberty is granted to the appellants
to pray for suspension of sentence
upon notice to the opposite
party/State through the office of
the learned Pubic Prosecutor, High
Court, Calcutta.
-And-
In the matter of:
1. Purnima Biswas alias Asima,
Wife of Ranjit alias Bapi Biswas,
Aged about years
2. Tuktuki Sardar alias Puti,
Wife of Manoranjan alias Kelo
Sardar, Aged about years
Both the appellants are residents of
Halabottala, Hatiara Sardarpara,
P.S. New Town, District: North 24
Parganas, PIN – 700157.
…. Appellants (In

-Versus-
 3

The State of West Bengal,

… … Respondent
To,
The Hon’ble T. S. Sivagnanam Chief Justice and His companion Justice
of the said Hon’ble High Court.
The humble petition on behalf of
the petitioner above named most
respectfully -
Sheweth:
1. That your appellants are law abiding citizens of India and they
are permanent residents of the address mentioned in the cause title
hereinabove. That the appellants filed this application for bail under
Section 389 (1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection
with an appeal being C.R.A. (D.B.) 378 OF 2023 for the first time before
This Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta.
2. That your appellants and one Ram Pada Manna alias Tapan were
asked to stand trial in Sessions Case No. 24(January)/2017 - S.T.
No.4(2)/2017 before the Court of the Learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - II, Tamluk, Purba Midnapore to
answer the charges punishable under Sections 302/201/120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. That the instant prosecution case was started on the basis of a
complaint lodged by PW 1 namely, Chandicharan Manna inter alia
alleging that on 15.10.2016 at about 7.30 AM he came to know from
local people that a headless dead body of an unknown woman in his
New Bangla Betel field (Pan Boroj. The age of that woman was 18 to 20
years approximately.Immediately, PW 1 went to the place of occurrence
and thereafter he informed Tamluk Police Station about the incident by
a written complaint which was scribed by PW 24 namely, Rabindra
Nath Kar.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Tamluk P.S. Case
No.747/2016 dated 15.10.2016 under Sections 302/201 of the Indian
 4

Penal Code, 1860 (G.R. 2421/2016) was started against unknown

persons.
4. Your appellants state that in connection with the instant case
they were arrested on 21.10.2016 and since then they are in custody for
more than 7 years.
5. Your appellants state that on 31.12.2016 the investigating agency
filed charge sheet under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 against your appellants and said Ram Pada Manna alias
Tapan.
6. Your appellants state that subsequently, on 16.02.2017 charges
were framed by the Learned Trial Court under Sections 302/201/120B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against your appellants and said Ram
Pada Manna alias Tapan to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
7. That the prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as
many as 39 witnesses while the defence adduced 1 witness namely,
Bani Sardar i.e. the mother of the deceased and the specific defence
case is one of denial and false implication.
8. That the Learned Trial Court after going through the evidence on
record and also after examining your appellant under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also after hearing all the parties
was pleased, by its judgment and order dated 22.08.2023 and
23.08.2023, to convict your appellants under Sections 302/120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them as aforesaid.
9. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
Judgment and order dated 22.08.2023 and 23.08.2023 passed by The
Court of the Learned Additional District and Sessions Case No. 24
(January)/2017 – S.T. No. 4(2)/2017 – thereby convicting your
appellants begs to prefer this appeal before this Hon’ble Court and the
same is registered as C.R.A. (D.B.) NO. 378 OF 2023 (Purnima Biswas
 5

alias Asima and others … … Appellants – Versus- The State of West

Bengal … … Respondents).
10. That your appellants state that the impugned judgment and order
cannot sustain in the eye of law for the sake of equity, fair play and
justice.
11. That your appellants state that it would be seen from the record
that there are discrepancies galore in the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, but the Learned Trial Judge branded them as minor ones
and thereby passed the impugned judgment and order which is wholly
illegal.
12. That your appellants state that your appellants have been
convicted only on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of a single
witness out of 39 prosecution witnesses i.e. PW 2 who only spoke about
conspiracy by your appellants and the aforesaid fact was never divulged
to the Investigating Officer during investigation nor the aforesaid
version was supported by any other witness and the Learned Trial
Judge gave much credence to this uncorroborated testimony of PW 2
and passed his judgment and order of conviction against your
appellants, solely relying on the same which cannot sustain in the eye
of law. On this score alone, the impugned judgment and order
complained of is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
13. That your appellants state that it would be evident from records
that no specific overt act has been attributed to your appellants by any
of the remaining prosecution witness other than PW 2.
14. That your appellants state that it would be also evident from
records that the investigating agency has submitted charge sheet
against your appellants on the basis of a slip shod investigation and
they have been implicated in this case solely on the basis of conspiracy
which is not supported by any independent witness.
15. That your appellants state that the Learned Trial Judge has relied
upon the uncorroborated testimony of the witnesses and has passed the
 6

aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence which cannot

sustain in the eye of law.
16. That your appellants state that the appellants crave the leave of
this Hon'ble Court to place and/or urge further grounds at the time of
hearing of this appeal.
17. That your appellants state that there is no corroborative piece of
evidence to make your appellants liable to be convicted under Sections
302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
18. That your appellants state that the examination of your
appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
is not in accordance with law.
19. That your appellants state that for the sake of equity, fair play
and justice the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside by
this Hon'ble Court.
20. That your appellants state that impugned judgment and order is
otherwise bad in law and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
21. That your appellants state that the impugned judgment and order
is a glittering example of non-application of judicial mind and as such
the same is liable to be set aside.
22. That on 09th January, 2024 the instant appeal was came up for
hearing before The Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi sitting with The
Hon’ble Justice Gaurang Kanth and upon hearing of the parties Their
Lordships has been pleased to admit the appeal and also liberty is
granted to the appellants to pray for suspension of sentence upon
notice to the opposite party/State through the office of the learned
Pubic Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta.
That the Photostat copy of the 09th January, 2024 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure – “P-1”.
23. That your appellants deny all the allegations levelled against
them.
 7

24. That the appellants are no way connected with the alleged offence
and the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out against the
petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
25. That as the aforesaid appellants are permanent residents of the
address as indicated in the cause title, so there are no chances of their
abscondence.
26. The appellants undertake to co-operate with the investigating
agency and to abide by any condition that may be imposed by This
Hon’ble Court at the time of granting bail under Section 389 (1) of The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with an appeal being
C.R.A. (D.B.) 378 OF 2023 of the appellants.
27. This application is made bona fide and for the interest of justice.
In the circumstances your
petitioner most humbly and
respectfully prays that Your
Lordships would be graciously
pleased to allow this
application and suspend the
sentence and will be further pleased
to direct to release the appellants
on bail during the pendency of the
aforesaid appeal being C.R.A. (D.B.)
378 OF 2023 filed before This
Hon’ble Court.
And/or
To pass any other / further order /
orders as Your Lordships would
deem fit and proper.
And the accused/petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.
 8

AFFIDAVIT
I Sujay Biswas son of Ranjit Biswas, aged about 27 years, by faith
– Hindu, by occupation – daily labour, resident of SardarPara, Hatiara,
New Town, District: North 24 Parganas, Pin Code - 700157, do hereby
solemnly affirm and say as follows :
1. I am the son of the appellant No. 1 of the instant appeal and I am
authorized to affirm this affidavit on behalf of the appellants and I am
well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case as such I
am competent to affirm this affidavit.
2. That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 1 and 9 are based
on my knowledge which I verily believe to be true and the statement
contained in the paragraph Nos. 2 to 8 are the information derived from
records and rest are my respectful submissions before This Hon’ble
Court.

Prepared in my office The deponent is known to me

Advocate Clerk to Mr.

Enrolment No. WB/1178/2007
Advocate
Solemnly affirmed before me this
day of 2023
I certify that all annexure are legible

Advocate
Enrolment No. WB/1178/2007

COMMISSIONER
District: Purba Medinipur
In The High Court at Calcutta
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
(Appellate Side)
C.R.A.N. No. of 2024
In the matter of:
C.R.A. (D.B.) 378 OF 2023
-And-
In the matter of:
An application for bail under Section
389 (1) of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in connection with an
appeal being C.R.A. (D.B.) 378 OF 2023.
And-
In the matter of:
Purnima Biswas alias Asima and
another
… … Appellants (In

-Versus-
The State of West Bengal and others
… … Respondents

Application for Bail in Connection with

Appeal

Mr. Nilanjan Adhikari

Advocate
Enrolment No. WB/1178/2007
Bar Association Room No. 11A
High Court, Calcutta
Mobile No. 9038996616
10

E-mail - sudhashatvs@gmail.com