[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Rafique Uddin vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 16 December, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010019022024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/344/2024
RAFIQUE UDDIN
S/O LATE ABDUL MANNAN, VILL.- BAGARSANGAN, P.O.- KANIBAZAR,
P.S.- PATHERKANDI, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
TO BE REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.
2:ABDUL MUMIN
S/O LATE IRFAN ALI
VILL.- BAGARSANGAN
P.O.- KANIBAZAR
P.S.- PATHERKANDI
DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN- 788724
Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B AHMED, MR K UDDIN,MR. A K AZAD,MR M HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 16-12-2025
(Michael Zothankhuma, J)
Page No.# 2/3
Heard Mr. A.K. Azad, learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant. Also heard Ms. B.
Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State.
This application has been made under Section 389(2) Cr.P.C. for suspension of the
sentence awarded to the appellant in relation to the judgment dated 28-11-2023 passed
by the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Karimganj in Sessions Case No.
77/2010, by which the appellant/ applicant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC.
The applicant's counsel submits that the finding of the learned Trial Court that the
applicant was guilty of having committed the offence under Section 302 IPC has been
made on the basis of interested prosecution witnesses Nos. 4 to 7. He submits that PW-4
is the brother-in-law of the deceased, while PWs-5, 6 & 7 are the brothers of the PW-4.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Esakkimuthu Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police , reported in
2025 0 INSC 880 had held that when witnesses are related/ interested, their
testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection, inasmuch as,
they are required to be met with a stricter standard of proof and deserve to be scrutinized
in order to rule out any embellishment. He also submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Md. Jabbar Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2022 0
SIR(SC) 5420 has held that the evidence of related witnesses can be rejected if there
are material contradictions and inconsistencies found in their testimonies. He, accordingly,
submits that the learned Trial Court did not consider the testimonies of PWs-4 to 7 with
discerning scrutiny and as such, the evidence of PWs-4 to 7 cannot be made the basis for
convicting the appellant.
Page No.# 3/3
On the other hand, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam submits that there is
nothing to show that the evidence of PWs-4 to 7 contradicted each other. She also
submits that PW-2 is also an eye-witness who saw the appellant committing the crime of
killing the deceased.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Md. Jabbar Ali
(Supra), the Supreme Court had held that the evidence of related witnesses can be
rejected if there are material contradiction and inconsistencies found in their testimonies.
However, the applicant has not been able to show us the material contradictions and
inconsistencies between the evidence of PWs-4 to 7. Further, the Supreme Court in the
case of Shiv Ram Vs. State of U.P., reported in (1998) 1 SCC 149, has held that the
evidence of related witnesses cannot be discredited only because they are close relatives
of the deceased. What is, however, required is that the Court must scrutinize the evidence
with utmost care and caution.
On considering the facts of the case, we are of the prima facie view that no case for
suspension of the sentence has been made out. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
