A court can pronounce a sentence against present convicts to avoid undue delay due to absconding co-accused, emphasizing the necessity of timely justice.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. In this appeal, the judgment was pronounced on 13.02.2025 whereby, the appeal preferred by the State against an order of acquittal has been set aside and the respondents have been convicted under Section 396 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC). The matter was thereafter directed to be listed for sentence hearing.

2. The matter was thereafter taken on a number of occasions and had to be adjourned due to non-appearance of the respondents. In this connection, this Court had issued NBWA and finally, except the respondent no. 1-Ashik Ali and respondent no. 2-Bolai Mia @ Monai Mia, the other respondents, namely, Moin Uddin and Abdul Malik were produced after being apprehended by the police and are presently in custody. As regards the respondent no.1-Ashik Ali, he was found to be absconding and as regards respondent no. 2-Bolai Mia @ Monai Mia, he was stated to have expired and a photo copy of the death certificate was produced. This Court had passed order on 05.05.2025 directing authentication of the death certificate as certain discrepancies were pointed out by the learned APP. The verification has, accordingly been done by the concerned police of the Karimganj Police Station and report of the same has been forwarded through the office of the Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Sribhumi, vide communication dated 26.05.2025. The same has been perused and it appears that the death certificate dated 30.01.2018, indeed pertains to respondent no.2-Bolai Mia @ Monai Mia.

3. We have heard Shri Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Addl. PP, Assam and Shri Debojyoti Roy, learned PP, Assam. Also heard Shri A Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents as well as Shri BM Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae.

4. Shri A Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the criminal trial has started in the year 1998 and the order of acquittal was passed in the year 2008. Thereafter, the instant appeal has been filed in which, the judgment has been delivered on 13.02.2025. He submits that sufficient time has elapsed and therefore, minimum sentence should be imposed. He has also submitted that the respondents, by this time, have become sufficiently aged and the age factor would also be a relevant.

5. On the other hand, both Ms. Bhuyan, learned APP, Gauhati High Court and Shri Debojyoti Roy, learned PP have submitted that the offence involved is a grave one which was committed in a dastardly manner and therefore, the maximum penalty be awarded.

6. Before going to the aforesaid aspect, this Court is required to deal with the situation where the respondent no. 1 is absconding. It may, however be mentioned that all the respondents were represented by the same learned counsel, who has been heard.

7. Section 353 of the Cr.PC pertains to Judgment, which reads as follows:

“353. Judgment.

(1) The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Court by the presiding officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders -

(a) by delivering the whole of the judgment;

(b) by reading out the whole of the judgment;

(c) by reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader.

(2) Where the judgment is delivered under clause (a) of sub-section (1), the pre