Sarsing Teron and 9 Ors v. The State of Assam and Anr

ORDER Date : 08/12/2023 Suman Shyam, J

Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel assisted by Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel appearing Page No.# 6/8 for the applicants. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned APP, Assam, who is present on behalf of the State. Mr. A. K. Hussain, learned counsel has appeared for the informant/respondent no. 2. By the judgement dated 24/02/2020 and order of sentence dated 28/02/2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong at Diphu, in connection with Sessions Case No. 59/2018, the 10(ten) applicants herein and 2 (two) other accused persons were convicted under sections 302/341/323/147 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with the aid of section 149 of the IPC for committing the murder of Jhankar Saikia and sentenced to inter alia undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Since then, they are in jail. By filing the instant application under section 389 of the Cr.P.C., the 10(ten) applicants are seeking suspension of their jail sentence and also for releasing them on bail. We find that by order dated 01/08/2023 passed in IA(Crl) 305/2020 arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 136/2020 preferred against the same judgement, a similar application for suspension of jail sentence and for granting bail to the two accused/appellants had been rejected by a Coordinate bench by recording reasons. It is in the backdrop of the above order dated 01/08/2023, that this Court is now called upon to consider as to whether, a different approach can be adopted in case of these ten applicants while considering their application for bail. Mr. Mahajan has argued that PW-93, who is the informant and father of the victim, is a star witness in this case. The conviction of the accused persons is by and large based on the testimony of the said witness. PW-93 has deposed that the applicants had assaulted him. However, PW-93 is not the victim. According to Mr. Mahajan, the other witnesses, viz. PWs 108, 110 and 112, who were also projected as eye witnesses to the occurrence, did not implicate the applicants. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Mahajan, this is a fit case for releasing the applicants on bail. Ms. Bora, learned APP, Assam, on the other hand, has invited the attention of this Court to the evidence on record to submit that all the applicants herein are standing on equal footing as the two applicants in IA (Crl) 305/2020, whose application for bail has already been rejected by this Court by order dated 01/08/2023. Therefore, a different approach in case of the present applicants is not called for. It is also the submission of the learned APP that since the appeals are already fixed for final hearing, the bail application be rejected. Similar is the submission of Mr. A.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no.

¶2Mr. Mahajan, on the other hand, submits that the case of the at-least the applicant nos.1 & 5 Page No.# 7/8 stand on a completely different footing. Since there are a large number of witnesses, hence, hearing of the appeals would take a long time. Since his clients are in jail since last more than four years, hence, submits Mr. Mahajan, this is a fit case for considering their application for bail. After analyzing the materials available on record, we find that the PW-93 is indeed a star witness. He had implicated the applicant No.1 Sarsing Teron and applicant no. 5 Junsing Teron for assaulting him but he has not ascribed any specific role to these applicants in assaulting the deceased. It is no doubt correct that PW-93 had made a general statement saying that all the accused persons had assaulted his son but the names of the applicant nos. 1 & 5 had only been specifically taken to show that they had assaulted the informant. In other words, it prima facie appears that the evidence available on record in respect of the applicant nos. 1 & 5 is for assaulting the PW-93 and not the victim. Therefore, it is doubtful if there was common object on the part of the applicant nos. 1 & 5 to commit any offence u/s 302 of the IPC. The same cannot, however, be said for the other applicants. Since conviction of the applicants/accused persons in this case is with the assistance of section 149 of the IPC, hence, this aspect of the matter, in our considered opinion, would assume great significance and thus, would project that these two applicants are not placed in a similar footing along with the other applicants including the applicants in IA (Crl) 305/2020, whose bail prayer had been rejected. Assuming that the applicant nos. 1 & 5 had assaulted the informant/PW-93, even then, that by itself cannot be a ground to convict these two applicants under section 302 of the IPC with the assistance of section 149 of the IPC for committing the murder of deceased Jhankar Saikia in the absence of common object. Whether the other evidence brought on record would be sufficient to sustain the conviction of these two applicants is a matter that would call for deeper consideration by the Court at the time of final hearing of the appeal. However, there is some doubt in our mind as to the involvement of the applicant nos. 1 & 5 in assaulting the victim. We, therefore, find force in the submission of Mr. Mahajan that the applicant nos. 1 & 5 stand in a different footing and deserve to be released on bail. For the reasons stated herein above, we hereby direct that the applicant no. 1 Sarsing Teron and applicant no. 5 Junsing Teron be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with one local surety each of like nature to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong at Diphu. The learned Sessions Judge would also be at liberty to impose any other additional condition Page No.# 8/8 for releasing these two applicants on bail, as may be deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. In so far as the prayer for bail made by the applicant nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 10, their prayer stands rejected. Before parting with the record, we make it clear that the observations made herein above are purely for the purpose of disposal of the bail application and the same shall not have any bearing in the outcome of the pending appeals. IA stands disposed of, accordingly.

JUDGE JUDGE

sukhamay Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/8 GAHC010074022020 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oI.A.(Crl.)/304/2020 SARSINGoTERONoANDo9oORS S/O-oLT.oKHOYASINGoTERON oVILL-oRONGCHINGRUM oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 2:oROBINSONoTERON S/O-oLT.oLUNCHEoTERON oVILL-oRONGCHETO oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 o3:oENUSHoTIMUNG S/O-oHONARIoTIMUNG oVILL-oRONGMONJIR oWARDoNO.o5 oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 o4:oBISWAJIToHANSE S/O-oLAKHIoHANSE oR/O-oIRRIGATIONoCOLONY oDIPHU oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 o5:oJUNSINGoTERON PageoNo.#o2/8 S/O-oLT.oHUMPHARoTERON oVILL-oMATIKHULA oP.S.oDOKMOKA oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782441 o6:oHITESSHoRAVA S/O-oSRIoGANESHoRAVA oVILL-oPOULTRYoFARMoCOLONT oDIPHU oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 o7:oMANGALoSINGoRONGPHAR S/O-oLT.oKENDRASINGoRONGPHAR oVILL-oTARALANGSOoDHANSINGoRONGPHARoGAON oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 o8:oPHILIPSONoTARO S/O-oLT.oBAPUTYoTARO oVILL-oRANGCHEKLAM oWARDoNO.4 oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 o9:oBIKRAMoTISSO S/O-oSRIoSINGoTISSO oVILL-oMENTILA oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 o10:oSANJOYoRONGPHAR S/O-oLT.oSARKAMoRONGPHAR oVILL-oRONGMONJIR oWARDoNO.7 oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM Page No.# 3/8 PIN- 782460 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY P.P. ASSAM 2:HAREN CHANDRA SAIKIA ADVOCATE S/O- SRI CHANDRA KT. SAIKIA DIPHU LAW COLLEGE COMPAUS DIPHU- 782460 PRESENT ADDRESS- SRI HAREN CHANDRA SAIKIA ADVOCATE R/O- CHAKIAL GAON P.O. CHAKIAL GAON P.S. TITABOR DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785632 ------------ Advocate for : MR. M SARANIA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR in Crl.A./135/2020 SARSING TERON AND 9 ORS S/O- LT. KHOYASING TERON, VILL- RONGCHINGRUM, P.S. DIPHU, DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782460 2: ROBINSON TERON S/O- LT. LUNCHE TERON VILL- RONGCHETO P.S. DIPHU DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460 3: ENUSH TIMUNG S/O- HONARI TIMUNG VILL- RONGMONJIR WARD NO. 5 P.S. DIPHU DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PageoNo.#o4/8 oPIN-o782460 4:oBISWAJIToHANSE oS/O-oLAKHIoHANSE oR/O-oIRRIGATIONoCOLONY oDIPHU oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 5:oJUNSINGoTERON oS/O-oLT.oHUMPHARoTERON oVILL-oMATIKHULA oP.S.oDOKMOKA oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782441 6:oHITESSHoRAVA oS/O-oSRIoGANESHoRAVA oVILL-oPOULTRYoFARMoCOLONT oDIPHU oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 7:oMANGALoSINGoRONGPHAR oS/O-oLT.oKENDRASINGoRONGPHAR oVILL-oTARALANGSOoDHANSINGoRONGPHARoGAON oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 8:oPHILIPSONoTARO oS/O-oLT.oBAPUTYoTARO oVILL-oRANGCHEKLAM oWARDoNO.4 oP.S.oDIPHU oDIST.-oKARBIoANGLONG oASSAM oPIN-o782460 9:oBIKRAMoTISSO oS/O-oSRIoSINGoTISSO oVILL-oMENTILA Page No.# 5/8 P.S. DIPHU DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460 10: SANJOY RONGPHAR S/O- LT. SARKAM RONGPHAR VILL- RONGMONJIR WARD NO.7 P.S. DIPHU DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 78246 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY P.P., ASSAM 2:HAREN CHANDRA SAIKIA ADVOCATE S/O- SRI CHANDRA KT. SAIKIA DIPHU LAW COLLEGE COMPAUS DIPHU- 782460 PRESENT ADDRESS- SRI HAREN CHANDRA SAIKIA ADVOCATE R/O- CHAKIAL GAON P.O. CHAKIAL GAON P.S. TITABOR DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 78563 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SARANIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA