Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Nagaland on 4 March, 2021

Author: S. Shyam

Bench: Suman Shyam

                                                         Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010036152021




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 I.A.(Crl.)/122/2021

      LIPISE SANGTAM AND 2 ORS
      S/O- TSUPISU SANGTAM
      VILLAGE- PHELUNGRE
      P.O. AND P.S. KIPHIRE
      DISTRICT.- KIPHIRE
      NAGALAND.

      2: SHRI HANTONG KONYAK
      S/O. NYEIE KONYAK
      VILL.- CHINGLONG KONYAK
       P.O. AND P.S. ABOI
       DIST. MON
       NAGALAND.

       3: SHRI NGAMPHONG KONYAK

      S/O. LONGANG KONYAK
      VILL.- TOTOK
      P.O. AND P.S. MON
      DIST. MON
      NAGALAND.
      VERSUS

      THE STATE OF NAGALAND
      REPRESENTED BY THE P.P.
      NAGALAND.


      ------------
      Advocate for : MR. A ZHO
      Advocate for : PP
      NAGALAND appearing for THE STATE OF NAGALAND
                                                                              Page No.# 2/3


                                 In Case No. : Crl.A./58/2021

            LIPISE SANGTAM AND 2 ORS
            S/O- TSUPISU SANGTAM, VILLAGE- PHELUNGRE, P.O. AND P.S. KIPHIRE,
            DISTRICT.- KIPHIRE, NAGALAND.

            2: HANTONG KONYAK
             S/O- NYEIE KONYAK
            VILL.- CHINGLONG KONYAK
             P.O. AND P.S. ABOI
             DIST.- MON
             NAGALAND.

            3: NGAMPHONG KONYAK
             S/O- LONGANG KONYAK
            VILL.- TOTOK
             P.O. AND P.S. MON
             DIST.- MON
             NAGALAND

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF NAGALAND
            REP. BY THE P.P., NAGALAND.


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A ZHO

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, NAGALAND


                                    BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

                                            ORDER

Date : 04-03-2021 (S. Shyam, J) We have heard Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. We have also heard Mr. K. Wotsa, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland, who has addressed the Court through remote video conferencing.

While arguing on merits of the appeal, Mr. Zho has pointed out a few anomalies in the Page No.# 3/3 manner in which the confessional statements of the three accused persons were recorded u/s 164 CrPC. By pointing out that the conviction of the applicants/appellants is entirely on the basis of their confessional statement, Mr. Zho has argued that the procedural formalities including sufficient time for cool reflection was not given to the accused persons. Moreover, submits Mr. Zho, no certificate, as contemplated by Section 164 (4) of the CrPC, is available on record. As such, there is serious doubt as to the voluntariness of the confessional statements.

Mr. Wotsa, learned Public Prosecutor submits that these questions can be addressed with reference to the LCR, which is not available with him today and therefore, hearing of the appeal be adjourned. Mr. Zho, therefore, prays for considering the bail prayer made by the three accused persons, who are in jail since 23.02.2016.

After going through the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the materials available in the LCR, we are of the prima facie opinion that the confessional statements of the accused recorded u/s 164 CrPC, which forms the basis of conviction, was not as per the prescribed format. However, whether such deviation would at all have a material bearing in the outcome of the case is a matter that can only be gone into at the stage of final hearing of the Criminal Appeal, which would not be possible today due to time sought by the P.P., Nagaland. As such, we find that a good case has been made out for releasing the applicants on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

We, therefore, direct that the three applicants, namely, 1. Shri Lipise Sangtam, 2. Shri Hantong Konyak and 3. Shri Ngamphong Konyak be allowed to go on bail subject to furnishing bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with two local sureties including one government servant each, as conditions for their release.

It is made clear that the applicants shall not leave the jurisdiction of learned trial court without the prior written permission.

With the above observation, this interlocutory application stands disposed of.

                                  JUDGE                           JUDGE
Comparing Assistant