John Khangkeo @ Jon Khangkeo Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

1. Heard Ms. M. K. Brown, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

2. This application under Section 430(1) of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, namely, John Khangkeo @ Jon Khangkeo praying for suspension of execution of sentence imposed on him by the judgment dated 17.06.2025 as well as the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 60(CH)/2023 and also prayed for allowing the applicant to remain on bail during the pendency of the connected appeal.

¶17

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has impugned the aforesaid judgment and order by preferring the connected Criminal Appeal No. 342/2025 which has already been admitted for hearing. She further submits that in the connected appeal, there is a probability of getting favourable order by the present applicant as there are inherent contradiction in the statement of the witnesses viz-a-viz the statement made in the FIR. She further submits that the informant and the victim in this case is the applicant’s own wife who does not have any objection regarding allowing of the prayer made by the applicant.

¶18

4. On the other hand, Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that he does not have any objection if the execution of sentence imposed on the applicant is suspended during the pendency of the connected appeal and he is allowed to go on bail.

¶19

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has objected to grant of any suspension of the sentence imposed on the applicant during the pendency of the connected appeal. He submits that it is very unlikely that the applicant would get any favourable order in the connected appeal as the independent witnesses have also supported the prosecution story and this is not an exceptional case where the powers of this court may be exercised under

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

Section 430(1) of BNSS.

¶22

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

¶23

7. In this case, it appears that the applicant was convicted under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years as well as to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation and also sentenced in a similar way for offence under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC.

¶24

8. It also appears that the connected appeal has already been admitted and in the said appeal the trial court records have been received and as such same is ready for hearing.

¶25

9. Considering the fact that the sentence imposed on the applicant is for a period of seven years only and it is very unlikely, considering the huge pendency of the criminal appeal before this Court, that the connected appeal may be heard expeditiously. Hence, if in the event the applicant gets a favourable order in the connected appeal he would be highly prejudiced if the sentenced imposed on him by the impugned order is allowed to continue. More so, the fact that the victim/informant who is wife of the present applicant has not opposed to the prayer for suspension of sentence.

¶26

10. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraph, the prayer made by the applicant in the instant application for suspension of the execution of sentence imposed on him by the impugned judgment is allowed.

¶27

11. The said execution of the judgment and order which has been

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

impugned in the connected appeal shall remain stayed till the pendency of the connected Criminal Appeal No. 342/2025.

¶30

12. The applicant is also allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) subject to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia with a condition that in the event of dismissal of the connected criminal appeal, the applicant shall surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining part of his sentence.

¶31

13. With the above observations, this interlocutory application is disposed of.

¶32

Comparing Assistant

John Khangkeo @ Jon Khangkeo v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Khangkeo @ Jon Khangkeo v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paro Mano 5 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 27 Ors.

Janta Umpey and 23 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 9 Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mina Barman and 3 Ors.

M/S Liberty General Insurance Ltd. Vs Dipak Baishya and 2 Ors.

Hanif Ali Vs the State of Assam

Debajit Das Vs the State of Assam