Lienkhokhai Changsan vs The State Of Assam
2022 Latest Caselaw 4255 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010035662022




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

                                  Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/90/2022

            LIENKHOKHAI CHANGSAN
            S/O LATE LOMSUNG CHANGSAN
            VILLAGE KHONGSAI, PS HAFLONG, DIST DIMA HASAO, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. J LASKAR

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM


             Linked Case : Crl.A./35/2022

            LIENKHOKHAI CHANGSAN
            S/O LATE LOMSUNG CHANGSAN
            VILLAGE KHONGSAI
            PS HAFLONG
            DIST DIMA HASAO
            ASSAM

             VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM


             ------------
                                                                              Page No.# 2/3

             Advocate for : MR. J LASKAR
             Advocate for : PP
             ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM


                                       BEFORE
                   HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
                                        ORDER

03.11.2022 Heard Mr J Laskar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr P S Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam/respondent.

The applicant has preferred an application under Section 389 CrPC for suspension of sentence, pending the appeal, to release the applicants on bail, against the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, Dima Hasao, in Special Case No. 66/2018, whereby the applicant/appellant was convicted under Section 22 (a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced with Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 1 (one) year and Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 with a sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand).

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has submitted that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are Police personnel and no any independent witness has supported the case of prosecution regarding seizure of contraband articles from the accused appellant. The case against the accused/appellant is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Special Judge, Dima Hasao had convicted the applicant/appellant on the basis of conjectures and surmises and not on the full proof evidence of the witnesses. There is every possibility to acquit the accused on hearing the appeal. As such, at this stage, pending appeal, his sentence may be suspended.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted objection against the prayer of the applicant by stating that on the date of incident, by conducting Page No.# 3/3

naka checking, some police personnel checked the vehicle, wherein the appellant/applicant was travelling. During such checking, they found a bag containing three numbers of 100 ml Tosex bottles, seven numbers of 100 curex bottles, 1296 numbers of contraband drugs and one airgun and one amplifier. The prosecution has examined 6 (six) witnesses and all the witnesses had supported the case that on being checked the vehicle, some medicines and contraband articles were found in the bag which was carried by the applicant/appellant. Hence, conscious possession of contraband drugs by the applicant/appellant is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence at this stage, bail may not be granted to the accused/applicant, in pending appeal.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the Judgment of the learned trial Court.

It is true that except two independent witnesses, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are Police personnel, but it is no bar to convict a person on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses, like police personnel, if they are convincing.

From the evidence of the witnesses it is confirmed that the accused was travelling in the alleged vehicle, on the date of incident and the alleged contraband drugs were found in the bags which were kept under the seat, in which the accused was sitting. It is seen that some contradictions are there in the statement of the witnesses, which will be considered at the time of disposal of final appeal. But at this stage, as it appears that a large quantity of contraband drugs were found from the possession of the accused/appellant, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to enlarge the accused/applicant on bail, suspending the sentence, in pending appeal. Hence, the prayer made in this application is rejected.

Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant