Gauhati High Court
Lakhiram Daimary @ Lankab vs The State Of Assam on 19 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010197182024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1019/2024
LAKHIRAM DAIMARY @ LANKAB
S/O. LATE BALESWAR DAIMARY
R/O. VILL.- BAKHRAPARA (MECHPARA)
P/S/ BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783380.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. FIRUZ KHAN
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 19.02.2025
1. Heard Mr. F. Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard
Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This application and the Section 430 of BNSS 2023, has been filed by
Page No.# 2/4
the applicant, namely, Lakhiram Daimary @ Lankab, praying for suspension of
the execution of the sentence, imposed on the applicant by the judgment and
order dated 20.07.2024, passed by the learned Session Judge, Chirang in
Sessions Case No. 14/2023 under Section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act, 1955.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
has impugned the aforesaid judgment by filing a connected criminal appeal,
which is registered as Criminal Appeal No. 354/2024.
4. It is further submitted that by the impugned judgment, the applicant
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, with a fine of Rs.
10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for
6 months.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the
connected appeal, the applicant has taken the plea that the trial court has erred
in coming to the conclusion of guilt of the present applicant under Section 25
(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1955, inasmuch as, it is in the evidence that the arms,
which was found in possession of the petitioner was a 9mm pistol, which is not
a prohibited arm but a restricted arm as per the Schedule-1 Part A (i)(c)(ii) of
the Arms Act, 1955.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that he
has a good case in the connected appeal. He further submits that in case where
short term imprisonment of 7 years is imposed, it is the normal rule that when
an appeal is pending sentence should be suspended. Otherwise, in the event of
allowing of the appeal in a later stage, the petitioner would be prejudiced.
7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
opposed the prayer on the ground that there are materials available against the
Page No.# 3/4
applicant on records.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the applicant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
9. In the case of case of "Kiran Kumar Vs. State of MP" reported in
(2001) 09 SCC 211, 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
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
Page No.# 4/4
sentence, if its consequence would be a danger to the
society or any other similar difficulties."
10. Since, in the instant case also, the applicant has taken a plea where
there is a possibility of getting a favorable judgment in the connected appeal
and since the sentence imposed on the applicant is also a sentence of short
term imprisonment of 7 years, this Court is of the opinion that deny the benefit
of suspension of sentence during the dependency of the connected appeal, the
applicant is entitled to be released as prayed for in this Interlocutory
Application.
11. In view of above, this Interlocutory Application is allowed and the
execution of sentence imposed on the applicant by the impugned judgment
shall remain suspended during the pendency of the connected Criminal Appeal
No. 354/2024.
12. 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 Session Judge, Chirang with a condition that in the event of
dismissal of the connected Criminal Appeal No. 354/2024, he shall surrender
before the Court of the learned Session Judge, Chirang to serve out remaining
part of his sentence.
13. With above observation, this Interlocutory Application is hereby
disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
