Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040017412025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.A./25/2025 Hillang Tuglo Son of Late Hillang Mangha, resident of Tumlang Village, PO and PS Sangram, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP 2:Tarh Akin Age: 39 Occupation : Son of Shri Tarh Tallum resident of Lungte Village PO and PS Sangram Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Pondit Ronya,Kirmani Lollen,Taba Tokur,Khoda Apa,Terji Kamchi,Gamken Bam,Tamar Gadi Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Linked Case : IA(Crl)/98/2025 Hillang Tuglo Age: 44 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Hillang Mangha resident of Tumlang Village PO and PS Sangram Page No.# 2/8 Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the PP of AP 2:Tarh Akin Age: 39 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Tarh Tallum resident of Lungte Village PO and PS Sangram Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Khoda Apa Advocate for : P P of AP appearing for The State of AP and Anr: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 10.11.2025 Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the a.pplicant. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 seeking suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail of the convict/accused, with regard to the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2025 and the order dated 17.09.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Papum Pare at Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 14/2019, under Sections 323/306/34 of IPC, pending disposal of the connected criminal appeal. Page No.# 3/8 3. Though notice was issued upon the respondent No.2/informant but prosecution after taking instruction submits that notice is not yet served. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bormoty Panggeng vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (GAHC010138392018), reported in 2021(1)GLT 833 and referred to para 20. The said para 20 may be reproduced herein below – “20. In view of the discussion and the reasons stated above, we answer the question in the negative. We further hold, that it is not obligatory on the part of the accused or the court to implead the informant as a party or to serve the informant with notice, before proceeding to hear an appeal filed by the accused against conviction in a case arising out of a police report. However, the “victim” may participate, with permission of the court, in the appeal filed by the accused against conviction and may engage a counsel of his/her choice, to assist the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, and may also submit written argument with the permission of the court. Therefore, in our opinion, the direction given in criminal appeal No. 222/2012 by the learned Single Judge, making impleadment of the informant obligatory on the part of the appellant in an appeal preferred by the accused against conviction does not reflect good law. The question is accordingly answered.” 4. In the case of Dipak Niyak vs. State of Assam in Crl.A.(J) No. 40/2022, the Division Bench of this Court has held that in cases pertaining to POCSO and rape, the informant/victim has to be noticed and given an opportunity of hearing. 5. Upon perusing both the case laws, it is clear that in a criminal appeal of this nature, perhaps it would not be essential to implead or notice to the Page No.# 4/8 informant. However, in the main criminal appeal, the prosecution has already been directed to take further instruction regarding the service of notice upon the informant as the informant has been impleaded. However, in view of the case laws referred above, I am of the considered view that the interlocutory application pertaining to suspension of sentence can be proceeded with. 6. As already stated above, the applicant was convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2025 and 17.09.2025 respectively. He was convicted and sentenced under Section 323/306/34 IPC. The applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand) only for the offence under Section 306 IPC and 1(one) year for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. The default stipulation is to undergo simple imprisonment for 2(two) months. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is presently serving out the sentence from the date of sentence. The learned counsel or the applicant has taken the Court through some portions of deposition of witnesses which adduced during trial including one daughter of the accused and the victim who were husband and wife. The learned counsel also referred a decision of Hon’ble Suprmee Court in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. State of Gujarat, reported in 2024 INSC 960. Referring to various paragraphs, the learned counsel submits that in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed the ingredients of abetment of suicide within meaning of section 306 IPC and he contends that from the evidence in the instant case, such ingredients are not made out and that therefore, the conviction of the accused/applicant under Section 306 IPC is a Page No.# 5/8 wrong conviction. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supports the impugned judgment and order and contends that there is no infirmity in the conviction and sentence and further submits that there is no merit in the appeal. 9. I have perused the relevant materials and given my consideration to the matter. At this stage I do not deem it necessary to delve deeply into the merits of the impugned judgment which shall be gone into at the time of appeal hearing. 10. In Jayedeepsinh (supra), it has been held in para 20 and 21 as follows – “20. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case under Section 306, IPC are : i. the abetment; ii. the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. 21. Thus, to bring a case under the his provision, it is imperative that the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the Court must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are Page No.# 6/8 insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide.” 11. Before proceeding further, I also referred to a recent judgment/order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 4/2021, reported in SLP(Crl) No. 529/2021. The judgment rendered on 08.05.2025, discussed various aspects of the criminal justice system. In para 13, that, the Hon’ble Apex Court held inter alia that “there is one more issue which is flagged by the Amicus Curiae. There are criminal appeals against conviction where a sentence of limited duration has been imposed. The learned Amicus Curiae has invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421, Narcotic Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 366 and Atul @ Ashutosh v. State of M.P., (2024) 3 SCC 663. This Court has consistently held that when there is a fixed period of sentence, normally the power of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised liberally, unless there are exceptional circumstances brought on record. The High Courts are bound by the law laid down by this Court in this regard. This is significant in the context of the fact that the figures shows that in some of the High Courts in case of large number of appeals against conviction, the accused have been denied bail.” It is submitted by the applicant’s side that the convict appellant shall abide by any conditions; shall not abscond and shall be available during the appeal. 12. Thus, in this judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to the cases of Bhagwan (supra), Lakhwinder Singh (supra) and Atul @ Ashutosh (supra) has held that when there is a fixed period of sentence, normally the power of suspension of sentence should be exercised liberally unless there are Page No.# 7/8 exceptional circumstances brought on record. I have given my due consideration to the said judgment and narration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 thereof. 13. Keeping in mind, the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision mentioned above and also the possibility that perhaps the appeal may not come up for final hearing in immediate future – I am of the considered view that despite the nature of the sentence i.e. r/i 10 years, the same can be suspended, granting bail to the applicant. However, suitable conditions have to be imposed to address legitimate concerns like welfare and safety of witnesses and the victim side. 14. Accordingly, in exercise of power of Section 430 BNSS, the execution of sentence imposed vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Papum Pare at Yupia in Sessions Case No. 14/2019, is hereby suspended till disposal of the appeal. Further, the applicant, namely, Hillang Tuglo, shall be released on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. Further the following conditions are imposed – (i) The applicant shall not abscond; (ii) That the applicant shall be available to receive the appellate judgment; (iii) The applicant shall appear before the learned trial court once in three months; the learned trial court shall be at liberty to fix any specific dates for the same and also modify the time frame fixed; Page No.# 8/8 (iv) The applicant shall not in any manner cause any harm to the informant or the victim; (v) The applicant shall not cause any harassment or harm to any of the witnesses who might have adduced evidence during the trials. 15. In case of any violation of the bail conditions, the learned prosecution or informant side shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail. 16. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending criminal appeal. 17. In view of the above, interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant