Gauhati High Court
Sahidul Islam vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 13 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010220082023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/973/2023
SAHIDUL ISLAM,
S/O JALAL UDDIN,
VILL.- PANBARI SATRA,
P.O.- MOIRABARI, P.S.- DHING, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782126.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.
2:MUSSTT. SAFIA KHATUN
W/O AMRAJUL HOQUE
VILL.- PANBARI SATRA
P.O.- MOIRABARI
P.S.- DHING
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782126
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M AHMED, MR. A AHMED,P. GHOSH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS.D SAIKIA, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 13.02.2025
Page No.# 2/5
1. Heard Mr. A. M Ahmed, the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. Also
heard Ms. S. H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as
well as Mr. A. Iqbal, appearing on behalf of Ms. D. Saikia, the learned Amicus
Curiae, representing the respondent no.2.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant
Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner for
suspension of the sentence imposed on the applicant/petitioner by the
judgment and order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, POCSO in Special POCSO Case No.
50(N)/2016 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 8 of the
POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5
years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and in
default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6
months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 448 of Indian Penal
Code and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred only)
and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 7 days.
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the aforesaid judgment of
conviction has been impugned by present petitioner by filing the connected
criminal appeal No. 284/2023.
4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the
delivery of the impugned judgment applicant/petitioner has already been behind
the bars for the last 1 year 8months and during the trial and investigation period
he had undergone 79 days of his detention.
Page No.# 3/5
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted as the sentenced
imposed on the applicant/petitioner is for short period of 5 years, if the
sentence imposed on him is not suspended during the pendency of the
connected appeal he would be highly prejudiced. In support of his submission
he has cited ruling of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kiran Kumar Vs.
State of M.P reported in 2001 9SCC 211 wherein it was observed by the Apex
court as follows-
"3. This Court has held in Bhagwanram Shinde v. State of
Gujarat, 1999 (4) SCC 421 : that when a person is convicted and
sentenced to a short term imprisonment the normal rule is that when
his appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended and rejection
is only by way of exception and be put forward for such rejection. In
such case also every endeavour should be made to have the appeal
posted for early hearing and disposal. If the short-term sentence is
allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal the appeal itself
will become, for all practical purposes, infructuous so far as the
appellant is concerned. It does not mean that the appellate Court
should suspend the sentence, if its consequence would be danger to the
society or any other similar difficulties."
6. Learned counsel has also submitted that during the course of the trial the
applicant/petitioner was also on bail and he fully co-operated with the trial and
there is no exceptional reason not to suspend the sentence during the pendency
of the connected criminal appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has
opposed suspension of sentences on the ground that the victim girl has
implicated the present applicant/petitioner and there is unlikelihood of the
connected criminal appeal would reserved in a judgment of acquittal.
Page No.# 4/5
8. I have considered the submission made by both the sides and have perused
the materials on record.
9. In the instant case the sentence imposed on the petitioner is for a short
period of 5 years and therefore the observation made by the Apex Court in the
case of Kiran Kumar Vs State of M.P(supra) is applicable to this case. More
so as the conduct of the applicant/petitioner during trial is stated to be good
and no exceptional reason could be shown for refusing the relief of suspension
of sentence during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal.
10. Therefore this court is of considered opinion that the applicant/petitioner is
entitled to the relief prayed in this interlocutory application. The sentence
imposed on the applicant/petitioner by the impugned judgement is therefore
stayed during the pendency of the criminal appeal No.284/2023.
11. The applicant/petitioner is also allowed to be released on bail of
Rs.30,000/-(Thirty Thousand only) with one surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge
(POCSO), Nagaon, with following conditions that:-
I. In the event of dismissal of the connected criminal appeal
the applicant/petitioner shall surrender before the court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge
(POCSO), Nagaon, to serve out the remaining part of his
sentence.
12. With above observation this interlocutory application is allowed.
JUDGE
Page No.# 5/5
Comparing Assistant
