Gauhati High Court
Topeswar Rabha vs State Of Assam on 30 January, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010173082022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
Interlocutory Application (Criminal) No. 497 of 2022
Topeswar Rabha, age 27 years,
Village -Sopai Baligaon, P.S.- Dhekiajuli,
District-Sonitpur, Assam.
......Accused/Applicant
VERSUS
1. State of Assam,
represented by Public Prosecutor, Assam
2. Anthony Bhengra,
S/o Bricha Bhengra,
Village- Sopai Baligaon,
P.S.- Dhekiajuli, District- Sonitpur,
Assam.
...............Respondent/Informant
Advocate for the Applicant : Mr K Sarma
Advocate for the respondents : Ms S Jahan, Addl. P.P,
Assam.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
Date of Order : 30.01.2023
Page No.# 2/5
ORDER (ORAL)
(Malasri Nandi, J.)
Heard Mr K Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant and
Ms S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. The present interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389 CrPC, by the
accused applicant, Topeswar Rabha seeking suspension of his sentence, pending Criminal
Appeal (J) No. 68 of 2022, arising out of the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2022, passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Sessions Case No. 04 of 2019, convicting
the accused/applicant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default stipulation.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant Anthony Bhengra lodged an FIR on
01.05.2018, before the In-Charge, Rakyasmari Police Outpost, under Dhekiajuli Police Station,
stating inter alia that on 30.04.2018, at about 04:00 pm, when his elder brother, Raju
Bhengra, went to their land to bring back his cattle, the two persons, i.e., son of Munna
Rabha and wife of Munna Rabha, armed with bamboo sticks assaulted him causing grievous
injuries on his person, as a result of which, his elder brother became unconscious and fell on
the ground. On receipt of the news, the informant went to the place and found his brother in
an unconscious state. Immediately, he was shifted to Dhekiajuli Primary Health Centre, then
he was referred to Tezpur Medical College and Hospital, for better treatment, as he had
sustained severe injuries.
4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Dhekiajuli PS Case No.
319/2018, under Section 325/506/34 IPC. After two days of lodging of the FIR, the elder
Page No.# 3/5
brother of the informant died and subsequently, Section 302 IPC was added and after
completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused/applicant,
Tapeswar Rabha, under Section 302 IPC.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/applicant, Mr K Sarma that the
alleged occurrence took place on 30.04.2018 at about 04:00 pm, but the FIR was lodged next
day, i.e., on 01.05.2018, at about 12:00 am, without mentioning the name of the accused. On
the basis of the said FIR, a case was registered under Section 325/506/34 IPC, but when the
injured died on 03.05.2018, Section 302 IPC was added and charge sheet was submitted
accordingly, which is not as per provision of law.
6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the accused/applicant that the
injured was allegedly assaulted by split-bamboo and what type of injury was sustained by him
could not be ascertained because he was not examined by any doctor and only PM
examination was held after his death and as such, whether deceased died as a result of injury
allegedly sustained by him by split bamboo or not is not established and under such
circumstances, the ingredients of offence under Section 302 IPC is not attracted.
7. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant has also submitted that there is no eye-
witness to the incident nor any strong circumstantial evidence causing direct link between the
accused and the crime committed. As such, the accused/applicant is entitled to bail at this
stage, pending appeal.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms S Jahan, has vehemently
opposed for granting bail to the accused/applicant, at this stage. She has submitted that
there are two eye-witnesses to the incident, i.e., PW-2 and PW-6 and they had clearly stated
Page No.# 4/5
in their evidence before the learned trial Court, that they had seen the incident and nothing
has come out from their cross-examination to discredit their evidence and at this stage, much
more is not required and therefore, the application for suspending the sentence may be
rejected.
9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. We
have also gone through the record.
10. In the case of Ramji Prasad vs Rattan Kumar Jaiswal And Anr ; reported in
(2002) 9 SCC 366 and in the case of Gomti vs Thakurdas & Ors; reported in (2007) 11
SCC 160, it was held that in heinous crime like murder, proper application of mind to
relevant factors and recording of reasons germane to justify grant of bail by the Court, is
essential.
11. Though the learned counsel for the accused/applicant has submitted that there are lots
of contradictions in the statements of witnesses and it is reflected from the FIR that two boys
informed about the matter to the informant and the said two boys were not examined by the
prosecution, and also pointed out that there was delay in lodging FIR and the victim was not
examined by the doctor immediately after the incident, but to our consideration, those facts
would be taken up at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
12. It is an undisputed fact that the incident took place on 30.04.2018, but the person died
on 03.05.2018, for the injuries sustained by him on the date of incident. The FIR was lodged
at the instance of the brother of the deceased, on the next date of incident, i.e., on
01.05.2018. From the FIR, it also discloses that immediately after the incident, the deceased
was taken to Primary Health Centre, Dhekiajuli and subsequently, he was shifted to Tezpur
Page No.# 5/5
Medical College and Hospital and it has also come out from the evidence of the witnesses
that the deceased sustained injuries on his head, which is a vital part of the body and is
corroborated by the Post-Mortem Report. Apart from that, PW-2 and PW-6 had categorically
stated that they had seen the incident. According to PW-2, on the date of incident, at around
4:00 pm he went to the field to bring cattle. The deceased also went there to take his cattle.
At that time, two boys were chasing the cattle. On this, accused preventing the boys, chased
them and assaulted Raju Bhengra with a lathi, causing injury on his head. PW-6 also deposed
before the trial Court in the same tune by stating that on that day, he also went to the field to
bring his cattle and saw the incident, while the accused/applicant had assaulted the deceased
with a bamboo stick, causing injury on his person. Both PW-2 and PW-6 stated that after the
incident, the deceased was taken to hospital, but he died after 3/4 days.
13. We have also gone through the detailed reasons, assigned by the trial Court, while
convicting the accused/applicant in the heinous crime of murder and sentenced him for Life.
14. In view of the above, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, and
following the decisions of the Apex Court in Ramji Prasad (supra) and Gomti (supra), we
do not find it appropriate to suspend the sentence of the accused/applicant, during the
pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the prayer of the accused/applicant is rejected.
15. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
