Gauhati High Court
Kamal Kumar vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 23 June, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010158952023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/887/2023
KAMAL KUMAR
S/O LATE JOGEN KUMAR, VILL.- KHUDRA KATALA BARKUCHI UNDER
NALBARI POLICE STATION IN THE DISTRICT OF NALBARI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY P.P., ASSAM.
2:PARADA HALOI
W/O LATE BARUN HALOI
VILL.- KATALA BARKUCHI UNDER NALBARI POLICE STATION IN THE
DISTRICT OF NALBARI
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z KAMAR, MR. U CHOUDHURY,MR B TALUKDAR,MR S J
CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 23.06.2025
[Manish Choudhury, J.]
Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Dev Choudhury, learned
counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam.
Page No.# 2/4
2. The present application under Section 389[2], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[presently, Section 430(1), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023] is preferred
seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against the applicant-appellant and
for his release on bail.
3. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying appeal, Criminal Appeal
no. 350/2023 against a Judgment dated 24.05.2023 and an Order on Sentence dated
26.05.2023 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari ['the Trial Court', for
short] in Sessions Case no. 66/2019. By the Judgment and the Order on Sentence, the
applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code
[IPC] and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further six
months.
4. It is stated that the applicant-appellant is serving the sentence since the date of the
Judgment of the learned Trial Court.
5. Initially, the First Information Report [FIR] was lodged on 27.03.2017 by the informant,
P.W.1 against six persons as accused for the suspicious death of his daughter, Juri Haloi, with
whom the applicant-appellant stated to have solemnised the marriage two and half years
prior to the incident. As per the FIR, the accused persons, named in the FIR, assaulted the
victim at around 12-30 p.m. on 27.03.2017 and thereafter, dragging the victim to her
matrimonial house, kept her on her bed.
6. The Investigating Officer [I.O.] after completing the investigation in connection with
Nalbari Police Station Case no. 201/2017 registered under Section 302, IPC read with Section
34, IPC, registered on the basis of the said FIR, submitted a charge-sheet against two
persons, namely, [1] Kamal Kumar [the applicant-appellant] and [2] Jyotish Das finding a
prima facie case against them for committing the offence under Section 302, IPC read with
Section 34, IPC. Charges under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC were accordingly
Page No.# 3/4
framed against them.
7. In the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined seven nos. of prosecution
witnesses and exhibited eleven nos. of documentary evidence. By the Judgment and Order on
Sentence, the Trial Court while holding the applicant-appellant guilty for the offence of
murder, acquitted the other charge-sheeted accused person, namely, Jyotish Das from the
charges.
8. Out of the seven prosecution witnesses including the Autopsy Doctor, who testified as
P.W.6, two of the prosecution witnesses, P.W.2 and P.W.3 turned hostile though their previous
statements were recorded under Section 164, CrPC. Three prosecution witnesses - P.W.1-
informant, P.W.4 & P.W.5 - were witnesses, who arrived at the place of occurrence, that is,
the house of the applicant-appellant and the deceased after the incident which resulted in the
death of the applicant-appellant's wife. Their testimony are to the effect that the deceased
was found lying on a bed inside a room of the house.
9. The deceased was found dead on the suspicious circumstances on 27.03.2017. The
post-mortem examination on the deadbody of the deceased was performed at SMK Civil
Hospital, Nalbari at about 02-50 p.m. on 28.03.2017 by P.W.6, who was then serving as a
Medical & Health Officer-I at SMK Civil Hospital, Nalbari on that day. After conducting Autopsy
on the deadbody, the Autopsy Doctor, P.W.6 found an abrasion injury of size, 10 cm x 1 cm
present over lower boarder of mandible of the deceased. P.W. 6 had opined that the abrasion
injury found on the deadbody of the deceased could be caused due to dashing on rough
substance and the said injury alone would not be sufficient to cause death. He had further
testified that he did not find any other injury on the deadbody of the deceased. P.W.6 did not
also detect any ligature mark on the person of the deceased. P.W.6 forwarded the viscera for
chemical analysis and on the basis of the Viscera Report he had received, he stated that no
poison was found in the viscera. He further stated that he could not opine whether the death
was homicidal or not otherwise.
10. The above facts are noticed upon perusal of the evidence/materials available in the
Page No.# 4/4
case records of Sessions Case no. 66/2019, in original, which we have perused for reaching a
prima facie view for consideration of the present application.
11. Having regard to the above evidence/materials on record, we are of the prima facie
view that the applicant-appellant has made out a case for suspension of execution of the
sentence passed against him and for his release on bail.
12. Accordingly, we allow this application by observing that execution of the sentence
passed against the applicant-appellant in Sessions Case no. 66/2019 shall remain suspended
till disposal of the connected appeal, Criminal Appeal no. 350/2023. Consequently, the
applicant-appellant is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the condition that
the accused-appellant shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without the prior
written permission of the Trial Court.
13. The instant application stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
14. 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 applicant-appellant and the same shall not be construed as observations made
with regard to the merits of the connected appeal.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
