Gauhati High Court
Md. Sultan Ali vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 3 May, 2023
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010224472021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/582/2021
MD. SULTAN ALI
S/O- ABDUL KHALEK, VILL.- AMULA PAM, P.S. TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR,
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM
2:SMTI MARIOM LAKRA
W/O- SRI PITAR LAKRA
VILL.- PUNG PANI
P.S. TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R BARUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
Date : 03.05.2023
1. Heard Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the applicant Sultan Ali. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar,
learned addl. P.P. for the State Respondent No. 1.
2. The applicant has filed this application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. praying for suspension of
sentence and realisation of the fine contained in judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the
Page No.# 2/2
learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 172/2019 convicting the
accused/appellant under Section 370(4) of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default Simple Imprisonment for
another 3 months.
3. It is submitted that the applicant has already undergone 1 year 8 months of the sentence. It is
submitted that evidence is fraught with discrepancies and the applicant will be probably acquitted. The
applicant is languishing in jail for 1 year 8 months. During trial the applicant was on bail and had
cooperated with the trial. The learned Addl. P.P. has raised objection stating that the case has been
proved against the applicant and he deserves the sentence imposed upon him.
4. I have considered the submissions at the bar and have carefully scrutinising the judgment and
order impugned by the applicant. It appears that the victim was 11 years old and she is alleged to have
been sold for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- and was recovered from a house while she was working as
maid servant in Arunachal Pradesh.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in 1999(3) SCR 545 (Bhagwam Rama Shinde Gosai and Ors Vs. State of Gujarat),
wherein it has been observed that :-
"When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any
statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are
exceptional circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a
different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence
could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended
every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious
hearing the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in
futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be
disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter suspending the sentence,
so as to make the appeal right meaningful and effective. Of course appellate courts can impose similar
conditions when bail is granted.
In this case as the High Court was not inclined to hear the appeal expeditiously we are of the view that
the sentence passed on appellants can be suspended on some stringent conditions."
6. I have considered the gravity of the offence under which the Appellant / Applicant was
convicted. It is true that the Applicant is in jail since he was forwarded to custody at the conclusion of
trial, but at this juncture, the petition with prayer for bail and suspension of sentence is rejected.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
