Sikkim High Court
Binod Sanyasi vs State Of Sikkim on 30 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 SK 27
Author: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
Bench: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
Court No.3.
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of proceedings
Crl. Appeal No. 13/2019
BINOD SANYASI .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF SIKKIM .... RESPONDENT
Date.30.07.2019
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.
For Appellant : Mr. Bhusan Nepal Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Pollin Rai, Assistant Public Prosecutor.
..........
I.A. No 01 of 2019
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence dated 30.05.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Gyalshing West Sikkim, in S.T. (POCSO) Case No. 25 of 2018. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- only. The Appellant has sought a prayer for suspension of sentence. On the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant liberty was granted to him to file an additional affidavit which was filed today and taken on record.
2. In the additional affidavit it has been stated that during the trial the Appellant had been granted bail by the learned Special Judge and he has abided by the terms and conditions contained therein. It is also pleaded that the Appellant is just 22 years and a permanent resident of West Sikkim and there is no chance of absconding or jumping bail. It is stated that the Appellant is a farmer Court No.3.
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM Record of proceedings by occupation and the sole earning member of the family looking after his aged parents. It is submitted that the Appellant is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed if he is granted bail.
3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kishori lal v. Rupa & Ors.1 it was submitted that Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal and release of the Appellant on bail. It is submitted that there is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. It was pointed out that one of the essential ingredients of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is the requirement for the Appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of sentence.
4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the Appellant this Court deemed it proper to admit the appeal and post the matter for hearing on 20.09.2019. Since the sentence passed by the learned Special Judge is one year only much of that time would go till the matter is finally heard by this Court.
5. Keeping the opinion of the Supreme Court in judgment cited by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in mind this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where the sentence of one year imposed by the learned Special Judge should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal, which has already been admitted considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime as well as the age and condition of the Appellant as pleaded in the additional affidavit. No 1 (2004) 7 SCC 638 Court No.3.
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM Record of proceedings adverse remark has been put forth against the Appellant save the conviction.
6. The order on sentence dated 30.05.2019 shall remain suspended during the pendency of the present appeal. The Appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge and for the said purpose appear before the learned Special Judge on or before 02.08.2019. The application stands disposed.
Judge 30.07.2019 Index: yes/No to/ Internet: yes/No