Gauhati High Court
Chandra Kanta Gogoi vs The State Of Assam on 16 October, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010042502023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/142/2023
CHANDRA KANTA GOGOI
S/O LATE BHADRESWAR GOGOI, R/O PHULAMPUR, GHORAMORA, P.S.-
LAHOWAL, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.
2:DIPEN GOHAIN
S/O LATE PRABIN GOHAIN
R/O PHUTAHULLA GAON
P.S.- LAHOWAL
DIST.- DIBRUGAHR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Linked Case : Crl.A./66/2023
CHANDRA KANTA GOGOI
S/O LATE BHADRESWAR GOGOI
Page No.# 2/5
R/O PHULAMPUR
GHORAMORA
P.S.- LAHOWAL
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE P.P.
ASSAM.
2:DIPEN GOHAIN
S/O LATE PRABIN GOHAIN
R/O PHUTAHULLA GAON
P.S.- LAHOWAL
DIST.- DIBRUGAHR
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. P J SAIKIA
SR. ADV
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
Page No.# 3/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
16.10.2023
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S.
Jahan, learned Addl. PP.
The applicant has prayed for suspension of the sentence made on the basis
of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 122/2009, convicting
the applicant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I for life
with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, i.d. S.I for 6 (six) months.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that while there were 4 (four)
prosecution witnesses deposing as eye witnesses to the incident of the applicant
hitting the deceased with a dao, 7 (seven) defence witnesses have, on the other
hand, testified that the deceased had gone fishing with them at the relevant
point of time. He accordingly submits that there was no justification for the
learned Trial Court to have accepted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
over the testimony of the defence witnesses.
Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. PP on the other hand, submits that there were 2
(two) eye witnesses to the account, i.e., PW Nos. 3 & 8 only. She also submits
that the impugned Judgment & Order dated 05.09.2022 shows that there was
some dispute, with regard to financial matters between the deceased and the
Page No.# 4/5
applicant, which showed that there was a motive for the applicant to have killed
the deceased. Further, the applicant had not only absconded after committing a
crime, but had also absconded during trial. She thus submits that the applicant's
action, having clearly proved the fact that he had committed a crime, the
application under Section 389 Cr.PC should be rejected.
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The evidence of PW-3, who is a relative of the applicant, is to the effect that
he saw the applicant hitting the deceased with a dao. PW-4 states that he saw
the applicant running away with a dao in his hand. PW-5 states in his evidence
that he saw the applicant holding a dao and he also saw the deceased lying on
the road with a cut injury on his neck. Further, the applicant threatened that he
would kill other persons also. The evidence of PW-8 is to the effect that he was
an eye witness to the applicant assaulting the deceased with a dao, which
caused severe injuries on the neck of the deceased. Further, the applicant had
an altercation with the deceased over money.
Though the case of the defence witnesses is to the effect that the applicant
had been fishing with them in the Dihing river at the relevant point of time, no
such explanation had been given by the applicant in his examination under
Section 313 Cr.PC given on 18.07.2012. However, in his examination under
Section 313 Cr.PC taken again on 22.05.2014, the applicant took the plea that
he had gone fishing with friends at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, the
applicant was again examined under Section 313 Cr.PC by the learned Trial
Court on 21.05.2022.
Page No.# 5/5
We have also noticed that the applicant had been absconding during the
trial period and that he had been arrested on the basis of a non-bailable warrant
of arrest.
On considering all the above circumstances, we do not find this case to be a
fit case for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.
Any observations and findings made in the order shall not be considered to
be the final observations or findings made at the time of hearing the appeal.
The application is accordingly rejected.
[ JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
