Gauhati High Court
Sri Harekrishna Das vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 9 January, 2020
Author: H.K. Sarma
Bench: Suman Shyam, Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010022972017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case : I.A.(Crl.) 343/2017
1:SRI HAREKRISHNA DAS
S/O SADIRAM DAS
R/O BATIKURIA
MOUZA NAGAON
P.S. BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781301
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR
2:TARANI CH. DAS
S/O LATE SARAL CH. DAS
R/O BATIKURIA
MOUZA NAGAON
P.S. BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case No. : Crl.A. 167/2017
1:SRI HAREKRISHNA DAS
S/O SADIRAM DAS, R/O BATIKURIA, MOUZA NAGAON, P.S.
BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781301
Page No.# 2/3
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR
2:TARANI CH. DAS
S/O LATE SARAL CH. DAS
R/O BATIKURIA
MOUZA NAGAON
P.S. BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
Date : 09-01-2020 H.K. Sarma, J Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant. We have also heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent. None appears for the respondent no. 2 in-spite of service of notice.
This application is under Section 389(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of the sentence imposed upon the accused applicant by the judgement and order dated 10/03/2017 passed in Sessions Case No. 31/2009 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barpeta. The accused applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also pay fine with default clause.
We have examined the records of the learned trial Court, particularly, the evidence available therein. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has taken us through the evidence on record and pointed out some contradiction, which according to him, if considered in the correct perspective, the Page No.# 3/3 present would be a case of acquittal of the accused applicant. The learned APP Mr. Phukan has submitted that appeal be disposed of on merit.
We have taken note of the fact that the case has been listed in the order Column and the respondent no. 2 has not appeared inspite of service of notice upon him.
On examination of the evidence on record, it prima facie appears to this Court that a thorough appreciation of the evidence on record would be required for a decision in the appeal and this is likely to take some time. At the same time, the accused appellant has been in custody with effect from the date of judgement i.e. 10/03/2017, a few months less than 3 (three) years. The contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses, more particularly, the PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which may or may not have a decisive bearing in the outcome of the appeal, we are of the opinion that since examination of the same would require a detail hearing, which would not be possible today, the present is a fit case where the prayer for suspension of sentence and allowing the appellant/applicant to go on bail should be considered by this Court.
In view of the above and considering the period of custody of the applicant/appellant, pending disposal of the appeal, this Court is of the view that the appellant/applicant be enlarged on bail till disposal of the appeal on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, on appropriate conditions to be imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta.
The sentence imposed upon the appellant/applicant in the aforesaid Sessions Case is suspended till disposal of the appeal.
IA stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Sukhamay Comparing Assistant