State Of Sikkim vs Surya Baraily
Party Details
- State Of Sikkim
- Surya Baraily
Case Summary
State Of Sikkim filed Case No. Crl. A. /8/2015 in the Sikkim High Court on 6 May 2015 against Surya Baraily. The case has undergone 6 hearings over 2 months. The case was disposed of on 22 Sept 2015. 8 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (6)
- 22SEP 2015Disposal
Judge: Honourble Mr. Justice Sonam Phintso Wangdi
- 15SEP 2015Hearing
Judge: Honourble Mr. Justice Sonam Phintso Wangdi
- 31AUG 2015Orders
Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice
Orders (8)
- 22SEP 2015judgementView Order ↗
Order No: 8
- 22SEP 2015orderView Order ↗
Order No: 10
- 15SEP 2015orderView Order ↗
Order No: 7
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Date: 22.09.2015 -------------------------------- S.B. : HON’BLE MR.
JUSTICE S.P.
WANGDI, JUDGE -------------------------------- Crl A No.8 of 2015 Appellant : State of Sikkim Versus Respondent : Surya Baraily, S/o Damber Baraily, R/o Charali, Hariya Budhubarey, District Jhapa, Nepal, A/P Upper Suldung, Mangalbaria, West Sikkim.
Application under Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. ------------------------------ Appearance Mr.
Karma Thinlay Namgyal, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mrs.
Pollin Rai, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-Appellant.
Mr.
Udai P.
Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel with Mr.
Yok Kumar Rai and Mr.
Passang Tshering Bhutia, Advocates for the Respondent. ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 2 Crl A No.8 of 2015 State of Sikkim Vs.
Surya Baraily Wangdi, J. [1] This Appeal is preferred under Sub Section (1) of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, against the sentence of the Respondent-Accused passed by the Learned Judge, Fast Track Court, South Sikkim at Namchi, in Sessions Trial (Fast Track) Case No.
26 of 2013. [2] It is the case of the State-Appellant that the sentence for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) committed against the victim who was a minor of less then 12 (twelve) years, was inadequate in view of the minimum sentence prescribed under the statute.
It is their case that under Clause (i) of sub section (2) of Section 376 IPC, the minimum sentence prescribed for such offence is 10 (ten) years but, in the present case, only 7 (seven) years has been imposed which calls for it being enhanced to bring in conformity with the express provision of the statute. e statute. [3] In my view, it would not be necessary to go into this as we have finally heard the connected Appeal filed by the Respondent against his conviction and, by judgment passed today in Crl A No.
14 of 2014, the Appeal has since 3 Crl A No.8 of 2015 State of Sikkim Vs.
Surya Baraily been allowed and the impugned judgment set aside acquitting the Respondent. [4] This Appeal having thus been rendered infructuous is therefore, dismissed as infructuous. ( S.
P.
Wangdi ) Judge 22-09-2015 Approved for reporting : Yes Internet : Yes ds/to