Sobahan Ali vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1314 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010016732022




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/43/2022

            SOBAHAN ALI
            S/O GAFUR ALI VILLAGE GASHPARA, PS AND DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM,



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

            2:ASARUDDIN MANDAL

             S/O LATE MOYDAN ALI MANDAL

            VILLAGE SASTHERGHAT
            PS AND DIST DHUBRI
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H R A CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
                     HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

                                           ORDER

Date : 20-04-2022

Suman Shyam, J Page No.# 2/3

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. We have also heard Ms. B.

Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State.

The applicant Sobahan Ali was convicted under Section 302/323 IPC and inter-alia

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- by

the judgment dated 17-12-2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in

Sessions Case No. 133/2015. The said judgment is under challenge in the connected

criminal appeal.

The instant I.A. has been filed under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to

suspend the jail sentence and also to allow the applicant to go on bail pending disposal of

the appeal.

Mr. Ahmed has invited our attention to the impugned judgment to contend that

there is material contradiction in the evidence of three key witnesses, which the learned

trial judge had failed to consider while convicted the appellant/ applicant. Moreover, the

victim had died in the hospital after 03 days of the incident and therefore, Section 302

IPC may not be applicable in this case. On such ground, the applicant's counsel has

prayed for releasing his client on bail.

On a careful reading of the impugned judgment as well as the materials available

on record, we find that the PW-4 was an injured eye witness to the occurrence and he

has clearly implicated the accused by deposing that he had seen the accused deal a

dagger blow on the victim from the backside. The said statement finds due support from

the postmortem report. Although the I/O has made an attempt to introduce materials Page No.# 3/3

contradictions in the evidence of PW-4 by stating that this witness had said before the

police that when the applicant was trying to assault the victim, he caught his hands from

behind and snatched away the dagger. However, upon verification of the statement of the

witness from the case diary, we find that no such statement was made by the PW-4

before the I/O. Therefore, the alleged contradiction in the statement of the PW-4 as

sought to be introduced by the I/O (PW-7) is found to be untenable.

Since there is an injured eye witness to the occurrence, we are not inclined to

grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Therefore, the prayer for bail is rejected.

Our observation made hereinabove are purely tentative in nature and meant only

for the limited purpose of disposal of this I.A. The same shall not have any bearing in the

final hearing of the connected appeal.

I.A. stands disposed of.

                           JUDGE                        JUDGE
GS




Comparing Assistant