Gauhati High Court
Darsing Rongpi vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 18 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010132902024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/660/2024
DARSING RONGPI
S/O LATE LONGBI RONGPI, VILL.- BAHANI ADARSHA, P.S. AND P.O.-
BAKALIA, DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782482.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
TO BE REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.
2:GOBIN RONGPI
S/O LATE LANGTUK RONGPI
VILL.- BAHANI ADARSHA
P.S. AND P.O.- BAKALIA
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN- 782482
Advocate for the Petitioner : ALHAJJ I UDDIN, MRS. R MOMTAZ,MR R HOQUE,H M I
HOQUE
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR N ZAMAN (R2),MR. O ULLAH (R2),I AMIN (R2)
Linked Case : Crl.A./226/2024
DARSING RONGPI
S/O LATE LONGBI RONGPI
Page No.# 2/5
VILL.- BAHANI ADARSHA
P.S. AND P.O.- BAKALIA
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN- 782482.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
TO BE REP. BY THE P.P.
ASSAM.
2:GOBIN RONGPI
S/O LATE LANGTUK RONGPI
VILL.- BAHANI ADARSHA
P.S. AND P.O.- BAKALIA
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN- 782482.
------------
Advocate for : ALHAJJ I UDDIN
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 18.02.2025
1. Heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also
heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
respondent.
2. Though, an affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No. 2 through
his engaged counsel, however, today no one was found on call for Respondent
No. 2.
3. Considering the content of the affidavit, this Court proposes to
Page No.# 3/5
dispose of this Interlocutory Application.
4. This application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 has been filed by the applicant, Darsing Rangpi for suspension of sentence
imposed on the convict Govind Rangpi and for the suspension of the sentence
imposed on the applicant by the judgment dated 05.06.2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge (POCSO) Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Special (POCSO) Case
No. 10/2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.783/2019, whereby the applicant
was found guilty under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-
and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2
months.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
has been sentenced to a short-term period of 5 years only and therefore, the
normal rule that when the appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended
and rejection is only by way of exception should be applicable in this case.
6. In support of his submission, he cites he has relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of " Kiran Kumar Vs. State of MP"
reported in 2001 09 SCC 211.
7. He also submits that the conviction is based only on the testimony of
the victim girl who being a minor could have easily be tutored and no
corroboration has been there of the testimony of the minor girl.
8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the allowing of the prayer of the petitioner and has
submitted that the conviction on the testimony of the prosecutorix is a valid
conviction and there are incriminating materials in the records against the
present applicant which do not justify suspension of sentence in such cases of
Page No.# 4/5
sexual offenses.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both the sites and have perused the materials available on record.
10. In the case of Kiran Kumar Vs. State of MP" (Supra) the Apex
Court has observed as follows:
"2. The appellant stands convicted under Sections 460,
376, 325 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860. The maximum
sentence imposed on him is imprisonment for a period of
seven years on the second count. He filed an appeal and
that is pending. But during the pendency of the appeal he
moved an application for suspension of the sentence but
that was rejected by the High Court as per the impugned
order. We are also told that the High Court has not
directed the appeal to be boarded for hearing and
disposal.
3. This Court has held in Bhagwan Rama Shinde
Gosai v. State of Gujarat [(1999) 4 SCC 421 : 1999 SCC
(Cri) 553] 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
Page No.# 5/5
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 a danger to the
society or any other similar difficulties."
11. In the instant case also, the applicant has been sentenced to a short-
term imprisonment of 5 years only and no exceptional reason has been shown
for not following the normal rule of suspension of sentence during the pendency
of appeal against such short-term imprisonments.
12. This Court is therefore, inclined to suspend the sentence imposed on
the applicant by the impugned judgment during the pendency of the Criminal
Appeal No. 226/2024, which this Court accordingly does.
13. The applicant is also allowed to remain on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand only) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction
of the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Karbi Anglong, Diphu.
14. During the pendency of the connected Criminal Appeal No. 226/2024
with a condition that in the event of dismissal of the said appeal, the applicant
shall surrender before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO) Karbi
Anglong, Diphu to serve out the remaining period of his sentence term.
15. This Interlocutory Application is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
