PATHERYA J. - (1.) THE appellants in CRA 138 of 2010 are the parents of the appellant Bappa Ghosh in CRA 141 of 2010. CRA 141 of 2010 has been disposed of by judgment delivered on 11th February, 2013 whereby on the ground of embellishment and the reasonings contained therein the order of conviction has been set aside.
(2.) IT has been contended by counsel for the appellants that the appellants who are the parents of Bappa Ghosh are on a better footing as not only have the statements under Section 313 CrPC being rolled up but from a reading of the questions in the statement under Section 313 CrPC it will appear that the Court had pre-judged the issue on facts. In the judgment delivered in CRA 141 of 2010 the evidence of PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 with regard to demand for dowry has not been believed. Therefore on the same ground as contained in CRA 141 of 2010 as all the accused are on the same footing the order of conviction and sentence be set aside.
(3.) Counsel for the State opposing the said appeal has submitted that on a perusal of the facts of the case the appellants deserved acquittal.;