THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction)
st
Dated : 31 July, 2024
------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
DIVISION BENCH : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl.A. No.32 of 2023
Appellant : State of Sikkim
versus
Respondent : Suresh Pradhan
Appeal under Section 378(1)(b) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-
Appellant.
Mr. Umesh Ranpal, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the
Respondent.
Respondent present in person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties on Sentence.
2.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in
consideration of the nature of the offence the Respondent be
convicted to the maximum period of imprisonment provided under
Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the
, and fined -(Rupees five thousand) only. Under
“IPC”) ₹ 5,000/
Section 506 of the IPC, he submits that the maximum sentence
prescribed therein also be imposed on the Respondent with fine of
-(Rupees five thousand) only.
₹ 5,000/
3.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the
Respondent has been incarcerated for a period of one year eight
months and twenty five days. That, the period of incarceration
already undergone by him be the only imprisonment imposed on
him in view of the fact that the Respondent is a patient of
Crl.A. No.32 of 2023
State of Sikkim vs. Suresh Pradhan 2
Tuberculosis. That, although he is presently not suffering from
Tuberculosis there is every chance that it could relapse during the
incarceration. That, in view of the fact that the penalty under
Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC prescribes that the period of rigorous
imprisonment may extend to three years or fine, no further
imprisonment be imposed on him under this Section and Section
506 of the IPC. Medical papers have also been made over to us
during the course of hearing.
4.
Having considered the facts of the case, the nature of
the offence and the submissions made before us today and having
perused the medical papers, we find that presently he has no signs
of Tuberculosis having been appropriately medicated for a year. He
has no fresh complaints of coughing or other symptoms of
Tuberculosis. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the
following sentences will meet the ends of justice;
(i) For the offence under Section 354A(1)(i) of the
IPC the Respondent is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a
fine of 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only. In
₹
default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months.
(ii) For the offence under Section 506 of the IPC he
is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay a fine of 5,000/-
₹
(Rupees five thousand) only. In default thereof, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months.
Crl.A. No.32 of 2023
State of Sikkim vs. Suresh Pradhan 3
(iii) The sentences of imprisonment (supra) shall run
concurrently.
(iv) The period of imprisonment already undergone
by the Appellant be set off against the period of
imprisonment imposed on him today.
5.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.
6.
Copy of this Order be forwarded to the Learned Trial
Court for information along with its records.
7.
A copy of this Order also be made over to the
Convict/Respondent through the Jail Superintendent, Central
Prison, Rongyek and to the Jail Authority at the Central Prison,
Rongyek, for information and appropriate steps.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan ) ( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge Judge
31-07-2024 31-07-2024
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds/to/sdl