Gauhati High Court
Pranab Hatibaruah vs The State Of Assam on 9 January, 2024
Author: Malasri Nandi
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma, Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010217852022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/713/2022
PRANAB HATIBARUAH
S/O- ATUL HATIBARUAH, VILL- GOHAIN GAON, HATIBARUAH CHUK
UNDER TEOK POLICE STATION IN THE DISTRICT OF JORHAT, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY P.P., ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. B. BHUYAN(ADDL.PP, ASSAM)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
09-01-2024
(Malasri Nandi, J)
Heard Mr. D Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant. Also
heard Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
Page No.# 2/4
2. The applicant has filed this application under Section 389(2) of the Cr.P.C.
for suspension of sentence and to release the applicant on bail during the
pendency of the connected appeal.
3. The applicant, Pranab Hatibaruah, was convicted by the learned Sessions
Judge, Jorhat by the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.08.2022 under
Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one month in connection with Sessions Case No. 172
(JJ) of 2018.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that though the
prosecution has projected PW-13, PW-15, PW-17 as eye witnesses to the
incident, but there are contradictions in their statement regarding commission of
the crime by the applicant. It is also submitted that from the evidence of PW-13,
it reveals that all the three accused including the present applicant caught hold
of the deceased and the applicant took away a wooden lathi from PW-13 and
assaulted the deceased causing injury on his chest and stomach. But the
learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that PW-13 did not disclose the
fact before the Investigating Officer while his statement was recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-18, the Investigating Officer also confirmed the aforesaid
contradiction while deposing before the Court.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant also contended that another alleged
Page No.# 3/4
eye witness PW-15 stated that all the three accused persons snatched the
wooden lathi from the hand of PW-13 and assaulted the driver of ape vehicle,
but he had not seen who had assaulted the driver. Hence, PW-15, does not
corroborate the version of PW-13. Moreover, PW-13 has not stated that PW-15
was also present along with him. As such, his evidence cannot be relied upon.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also stated that during trial the applicant
was all along on bail and has never misused the liberty that has been granted to
him by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the applicant also added that
there is every likelihood of interference by this Court against the order of
conviction passed by the learned trial court. Hence, the applicant may be
allowed to go on bail during the pendency of the connected appeal.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam on the other hand, has
opposed in granting of bail to the applicant by suspending the sentence and
submits that there is cogent and reliable evidence of the eye witnesses. There is
also evidence of the injured witness and it is a settled position of law that the
testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Evidence of
all the eye witnesses make it clear that the applicant along with two other
accused were present on the spot, where the incident had occurred and
committed the offence. Under such backdrop, the prayer of the applicant may
be rejected.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
We have also perused the statement of the witnesses.
Page No.# 4/4
9. Admittedly, there are eye witnesses to the incident out of whom one was
injured in the alleged incident. It is true that there are some contradictions in
the statement of the witnesses, but which cannot be taken into consideration in
granting bail to the applicant under Section 389 Cr.P.C by suspending sentences.
From the evidence of the witnesses, it is not in dispute that the applicant was
present on the spot. Without further going into the evidence of the witnesses in
detail as well as the merit of the case, we are not inclined to allow the
application for bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during
the pendency of the connected appeal.
10. Interlocutory application, accordingly, stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
