Gauhati High Court
Rabiram Das vs The State Of Assam on 25 September, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010171662023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/829/2023
RABIRAM DAS,
S/O SRI SABIR DAS, R/O VILLAGE KHARUAJAN, P.S. BARAMA, DIST.
BAKSA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Linked Case : CRL.A(J)/31/2022
PRAFULLA DAS
BAKSA
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PP
ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/3
------------
Advocate for : MR. B BHAGAWATI
AMICUS CURIAE
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
25.09.2023
(Michael Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned Counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This application under Section 389 (3) CrPC is for suspending the sentence
passed in the impugned Judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Session Judge,
Baksa, Mushalpur, in Session Case No. 233/2018, by which the applicant has been
convicted under Section 302/34 IPC.
3. The applicant's counsel submits that there is nothing in the evidence recorded
by the prosecution witnesses showing the involvement of the applicant in the crime in
which one Gobinda Ramchiary had been killed. He submits that the applicant had no
hand in the killing of the deceased with a knife and the circumstantial evidence does
not point to the guilt of the applicant. He submits that the applicant has been
convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and as such, the circumstantial
evidence must rule out any likelihood of the innocence of the accused. He submits
that in a case of conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, all the links in the
chain given should form an irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused and
the guilt must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In this regard, he has relied
upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Jayaram & Another Vs.
Page No.# 3/3
State of A.P, CBI reported in AIR 1995 SC 2128.
4. Mrs. S. Jahan, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits
that the applicant and two other persons had, after killing the deceased with a knife,
surrendered themselves before the Police Station with the bloodied knife. She submits
that the circumstantial evidence, which is to the effect that the applicant had
surrendered himself with the bloodied knife, alongwith two others, proved the guilt of
the applicant. She also submits that the applicant had surrendered within half an hour
of the occurrence of the crime and as such, there was nothing to show that the
applicant was innocent of the crime. Thus, the application for suspension of the
sentence and bail should be rejected.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusing the
evidence of Court Witness-1(CW-1), we find that the applicant had surrendered
alongwith two co-accused in the Police Station with the 10 inch knife, which was
blood-stained. On considering the evidence of CW-1 and the evidence of PW-12, we
are of the view that the sentence inflicted upon the applicant cannot be suspended at
this stage. Accordingly, the application for suspension of the sentence and prayer for
bail is rejected.
IA is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
