Crl. A./2/2004 of Nanda Kishore Khanal and Ano. Vs State of Sikkim on 3 December 2004

lN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM

ia'DateOffice Nctife to IofofOrder with Signatureaction (jf any)'IerOrder__ Ja_ken or]Order_1214•7.200•8.2004.9.2004d'.s prayed for ^=pric uP-6n`` 20..-8`2004Ear.heajrlng.. `-_.;.. _ - __ __ _ ,( R. K. atra )-_,ife\NobuL`ded v`t````-i.`..`Chief ustiqe~.( N' S' Singh )JudeHeardShriN.Rai.learnedCounselfor the appellants and Shri I. a. Pradhan.learned Public Prosecutor for the State.cde5foafur`6t+j~{`~(:.i.i+,i?:jdf)`,:..-I::.-::::i----:;:-::`-::::-I-Issue notice under Section 386(iii)cr.p.c.titra;not'£eq.a¥rfeiiants to show cause•\as to why the sentence of life imprisonmenton them should not be converted to punisBnewith death . . . .+s h® c£ELpr ®tt1`Sr11`.J`R. K. B# ,Chief Jllstice\r, `Cin( N' S' Sirfty-)JudePut up for hearing on 11.10.2004. asrequested I)y Shri N. Raf, counsel for theappellants. ( A. K. P tra )CThie£ .ustice`N,( N' S. Singh )Jude 10.20

6.11

7. 9.1•2004

4.3.12. ZOO

4 A. prayed £®r by 141e8 .yctl marka.learned counsel £®r tine appellant. put upfor h®arlng .n 9.11.2004.

I dyrf1

Judg.

Heazid thrl H. Ralrb6s&sted by Hle8 .yTharka. learned counsel for the appellantand Shri Kama Thinlay. learned JlaBtc.Go`/t.Advocate appearing for the Scat.e -reapond®

^8 prayed for by Shri KEima Thlnlay.learned As8€t.Covt.Advocate for tt)e State.the matter be llgted on 3.12.2004 for hearl Heard Mr. N. Rai, learned Counsel appearingfor the appellants. Also heard Mr. LJ. a. Pradhan,learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

The appellants submitted an application forallowing them to withdraw the appeal by contendinginter alia, that the appellants had discussion withtheir counsel and also took advis`e from their wellwishers and friends and lastly they have come to theconclusion that it would be better for them to Order with Signature withdraw the appeal preferred by them.It may bementioned that while taking up the case` for hearingrl+on 20.8.2004, this Court issued a noticeasppellants tounder Section 386 ¢ycr.P.C. tothea\cL+,show cause as to why thesentenIce of lifeimprisonment on them.should not be)onverted topunishment with deathi`': The appellants submittedtheir show cause 'and Contended that they areinnocent persons and there is no material on recorfor their conviction and sentence of lifeimprisonment, and, ththe position, theyquestioned the validity of.[;#:i.nu:]e judgment and order osentence passed by the 1'earned Sessions Judge,Special Division - 11, Sikkim in Criminal Case No.6 o2002, but on` advice of their well-wishers as well asthe advice of their counsel, they submitted theapplicaLtion for withdrawal of the related abpeal.

Office Note a=.oactiofl (if any)taken on Order\\

We have perused the judgment and order ofsentence passed by the leaned Sessions Judge,Special Division - 11, Sikkim. After proper applicationof our mind in the matter, we are of the view that thelearned Sessions LJudge, Special Division - 11, Sikkimhad rightly passed the impugned judgment and orderof sentence, and, as such, no interference is calledfor. So far as the enhancement of sentence j¢ to~Punishmeonnt,.uw;:;:i death, We find no sufflcientmaterials: for converting the sentence of lifeimprisonment to punishment with death.

For the reasons, observations and discussionsmade above, we allow the application for withdrawalriled by the appellants,thus a££1rmlng the lIIprigjudgment and the Order o£ 8entem=e passed bthe learned Ses81ons J`ldcial DIY11, Slunm."tryF93, `\c~,

iiiliiiiiiiiii-

SerialDateNo. ofofOrderOrder

Order with SignatureIt is made clear that State did not prefer appealagainst the impugned judgment on conviction andorder of sentence.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is closedand finally disposed of.\'.„.s"TJaNn!sigiv/Chief JfuLstice I Acta.I".p.EL!=T---e Office Note as toaction (if any)taken on Order -``- :-:--.-:-: :------:--tr,