Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 26 August, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010271492024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1287/2024
SANKAR RAJBONGSHI AND ANR
S/O LATE THAKUR DAS RAJBONGSHI
R/O VILL- NO. 2 LAKHIJHORA
P.O.-BHOTAGAON
P.S.-PANBARI
DIST- CHIRANG (BTR)
ASSAM
PIN-783390
2: RANJIT RAJBONGSHI
S/O LATE ISHWAR RAJBONGSHI
R/O VILL- NO. 2 LAKHIJHORA
P.O.-BHOTAGAON
P.S.-PANBARI
DIST- CHIRANG (BTR)
ASSAM
PIN-783390
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ASSAM
2:SAHADEB MONDAL
S/O LATE SRIBASH CHANDRA MANDAL
R/O VILL- NO. 2 LAKHIJHORA
P.O.-BHOTAGAON
P.S.-PANBARI
DIST- CHIRANG (BTR)
ASSAM
PIN-783390
Page No.# 2/5
------------
Advocate for : MR. K M HALOI
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : --26.08.2025
(Kaushik Goswami, J)
Heard Mr. K. M. Haloi, learned counsel appearing for the
applicants and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel/Additional Public
Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.
2. By way of this interlocutory application, filed under Section 430
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred
to as the "BNSS"), the applicants, i.e., Sankar Rajbongshi, & Ranjit
Rajbongshi, are seeking suspension of the impugned conviction and
sentence order dated 28.11.2024, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bijni, Chirang (hereinafter referred to as the "trial
court"), in Sessions Case No.158/2018, whereby the applicants
were convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") and sentenced thereof to
undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each.
3. It appears that the applicants on 28.11.2024 were sent to jail by
the learned trial court upon being convicted by the judgment & order
dated 28.11.2024 and since then, they are in custody. Situated thus,
the present interlocutory application for suspending the aforesaid
Page No.# 3/5
sentence has been filed along with the connected criminal appeal.
4. Mr. K. M. Haloi, learned counsel appearing for the applicants,
submits that the impugned judgment & order having been based
solely on the basis of the so called eyewitness, which is not
corroborated by any independent witnesses, there is every possibility
of the success of the connected criminal appeal. He further submits
that the evidence of the medical officer rules out the gunshot injuries
as claimed to have been inflicted by the accused persons upon the
stomach of the deceased. He therefore submits that the testimony of
the sole eyewitness, i.e., PW-2 is wholly unreliable and therefore could
not have been relied upon by the learned trial court for convicting the
applicants.
5. Per contra, Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, submits that the
testimony of the eyewitness/PW-2 is fully corroborated by the post-
mortem report, and hence the grounds taken in the appeal are not
sufficient for overturning the impugned conviction.
6. We have given our prudent consideration to the arguments
advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have
perused the material available on record.
7. Undoubtedly, once the accused is held guilty, the principle of
presumption of innocence under the criminal jurisprudence of our
country, i.e., an accused is assumed to be innocent till he is proved to
be guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, gets erased. That being
so, it is the duty of the appellate court in such application seeking
Page No.# 4/5
suspension of sentence to examine whether prima facie there was
anything palpable on the record to indicate that the accused had a fair
chance of overturning the conviction.
8. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, it appears that
the prosecution case is based solely on the testimony of the
eyewitness, i.e., PW-2, who is the husband of the deceased. It prima
facie appears that the aforesaid testimony is not corroborated by any
other independent witnesses. It further appears that the testimony of
PW-2 as regards the use of the gun to inflict the gunshot injury in the
abdomen of the deceased is not corroborated by medical evidence.
9. We, therefore, are of the unhesitant view that the grounds of
appeal appear to be prima facie substantial and good. It appears that
the applicants were on bail during the trial and have not taken any
undue advantage of the liberty granted to them during the trial. It
further appears that there are no criminal antecedents available on
record against the applicants.
10. That being so, we are of the considered view that the applicants
have made out a prima facie case for suspension of the execution of
the sentence passed against them. Accordingly, we allow this
application by observing that the execution of the sentence passed
against the applicants in Sessions Case No.158/2018 shall remain
suspended till disposal of the connected criminal appeal, i.e., Crl.
A./446/2024.
11. Consequently, the applicants are allowed to go on bail on
furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- each, with one surety each
Page No.# 5/5
of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bijni, Chirang.
12. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed.
13. It is, however, made clear that the observations made
hereinabove are only for the purpose of considering the prayer for
suspension of execution of the sentence and grant of bail to the
applicants, and the same shall not be construed as observations made
with regard to the merits of the connected appeal.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
