Gauhati High Court
Keshav Nath vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 14 November, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010205652024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/990/2024
KESHAV NATH
S/O. LATE BUDHBOR NATH
VILL. BASANAGHAT
P/O. MANIPUR
P/S. MORIGAON
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM.
2:RUMI BORA
W/O. LUHIT CHANDRA BORA
VILL.- TARANGAPAR
P/S. JAGIROAD
DIST.- MORIGAON
PIN-782410
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MS. D L DEKA
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Linked Case : Crl.A./342/2024
KESHAV NATH
S/O. LATE BUDHBOR NATH, VILL. BASANAGHAT, P/O. MANIPUR, P/S.
MORIGAON, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/4
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:RUMI BORA
W/O. LUHIT CHANDRA BORA
VILL.- TARANGAPAR
P/S. JAGIROAD
DIST.- MORIGAON
PIN-782410
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D L DEKA, MAUSAM NATH,MR. A BHATTACHARJEE,MR.
M NATH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A TEWARI, AMICUS CURIAE(R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
14.11.2025
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also
heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State and Mr.
A. Tewari, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2.
2. This is an application under Section 430 BNSS for suspending the sentence
imposed upon the applicant/ appellant pursuant to the judgment dated
10.09.2024, passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge (POCSO), Morigaon in POCSO Case No.295/2023, arising out of Jagiroad
Page No.# 3/4
P.S. Case No.229/2022.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the applicant
has been convicted only on the ground that he is an abettor of the crime
committed by the co-accused Deep Jyoti Deka. He submits that there is no
mention of the applicant in the FIR and that the name of the applicant cropped
up for the first time only during the recording of her testimony by the learned
Trial Court. He submits that in terms of the judgment of the Single Bench of this
Court in Samiran Begum Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2007 (4) GLT
207, Section 109 of the IPC is attracted when the three ingredients mentioned
in Section 107 are found present. In the present case, there was no question of
the applicant abetting the alleged crime committed by the main accused Deep
Jyoti Deka, as the first two ingredients of instigating a person and engaging in
conspiracy for doing of an illegal act did not arise. Further, in the 161 Cr.P.C.
statement made by the victim, the applicant's name was not mentioned.
4. The counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that the
wording in Section 107 of the IPC clearly goes to show that there is no
requirement for the three ingredients mentioned therein to be present together,
for coming to a finding that there has been an abetment of an offence. The use
of the word 'or' clearly goes to show that even if one of the ingredients is
present, the provisions of Section 109 of the IPC is attracted.
5. In the present case, rape had been allegedly committed by the main
accused Deep Jyoti Deka in the house of the applicant, who was in another
room with another person. Even though the victim had shouted for help, no
help had been forthcoming from the applicant.
Page No.# 4/4
6. On considering the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
the case of Samiran Begum (supra), we are not sure that the finding of the
learned Single Judge was to the effect that all the three ingredients mentioned
in Section 107 was required to be present for coming to a finding that there had
been abetment of an offence. The use of the word 'or' in Section 107 IPC
between the various three ingredients, prima facie shows that there was no
requirement for all the three ingredients being present together, for coming to a
finding that there was abetment of an offence. In any event, we are of the
prima facie view that as the applicant was apparently the owner of the house in
which the crime had been committed, the sentence imposed upon the applicant
should not be suspended at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the application under Section 430 BNSS is rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
