Gauhati High Court
Rohit Gatowar vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 6 June, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010038102023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/223/2023
ROHIT GATOWAR
S/O SRI BHARAT GHATOWAR
RESIDENT OF BHULUKUTING TEA ESTATE
BORTING NAWHALIA UNDER GOLAGHAT PS DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR .
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
2:BHARAT GHATOWAR
S/O LATE BHANDA GHATOWAR
RESIDENT OF PURANALINE BHULUKUTING TEA ESTATE
BORTING NAWHALIA UNDER GOLAGHAT PS DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR UJJAL CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR .
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : --06.06.2025
[M. Choudhury, J]
Heard Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms.
S.H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party, State of Assam.
2. This application under Section 389, Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC], 1973 is
preferred seeking suspension of execution of sentence passed against the applicant-appellant
and for his release on bail. The applicant-appellant has preferred the accompanying criminal
appeal, CRL.A(J)/43/2023 against a Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the Court
of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat ['the trial court', for short] in Sessions Case
no. 13/2018. By the Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2022, the applicant-appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default stipulations.
3. The Paper Book has already been prepared.
4. On prima facie perusal of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the medical
evidence, it is noticed that the deceased died of a stab injury. The learned trial court has
opined that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one. Two prosecution witnesses had
deposed to have witnessed the incident.
5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that there
are inconsistencies in the testimony of a nos. of prosecution witnesses.
6. For consideration of the application, though the State has not filed any objection, we
have gone through the evidence/materials on record available in the Paper Book. It is settled
that while considering the application for suspension of the execution of the sentence at the
stage under Section 389 CrPC, what is to be looked into is whether there is something
Page No.# 3/3
palpable or apparent on the face of the record on the basis of which the Court can arrive at a
prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The appellate court while
considering an application under Section 389, CrPC is not supposed to reappreciate the
evidence meticulously to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here and there in the case of the
prosecution.
7. Having regard to the eye witness accounts and the medical evidence on record, we are
of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has not been able to made out a prima
facie case for suspension of execution of the sentence passed against him. Resultantly, the
instant application is rejected.
8. 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
