[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Subut Saikia vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 12 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010133162022
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/16/2023
SUBUT SAIKIA
S/O DIMBESWAR SAIKIA
RESIDENT OF NO. 1 MEDULEJANGAON
PS SAPEKHATI
DIST CHARAIDEO. ASSAM. 785705
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
2:SHRI CHANDRA KONWAR
S/O LATE TIKHESWAR KONWAR
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGHMORIALGAON
PS SAPEKHATI
DIST CHARAIDEO
ASSAM
785692
------------
Advocate for : MR J DAS
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
12-03-2026
(A.D.Choudhury, J.)
1. Heard Mr. U. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. B.
Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the opposite
party/respondent No.1.
2. The present Interlocutory Application is filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
seeking suspension of execution and stay of judgment & order dated
12.05.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Charaideo in
Sessions (CHA) Case No. 74/2018, whereby the applicant was
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.07.2017, at around 04:30
pm, the victim, who is daughter of the informant PW-1, along with the
present applicant, who is husband of the victim and their minor child
arrived at the informant's house and stayed there.
4. It is further alleged that on 17.07.2017, when the informant PW-1 and
his wife PW-2 left their residence for work, the victim,
accused/applicant and their minor child were the only persons
present in the house. Subsequently, the dead body of the victim was
found in the house, whereas, the accused/applicant and the child
were not present.
Page No.# 3/5
5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant, argues that the
prime prosecution witnesses are PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3; however, none of
them are eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence. According to the
learned counsel for the applicant, the prosecution case mainly relies
on the testimony of PW-3, before whom accused/applicant allegedly
stated that something was going to happen. It is contended that such
evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction and that there is no
cogent material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence.
6. Per contra, Ms. Bhuyan, learned Additional PP, Assam, submits that
though there was no direct evidence, however, the chain of
circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly points towards the
guilt of accused/applicant. It is submitted that the accused/applicant
was proved to be last seen with the victim and their minor child in the
house of the informant and thereafter, the dead body of the victim
was recovered from the same premises. According to the learned
Additional PP, the accused/applicant had failed to offer any
explanation regarding the circumstances in which the victim died and
that his subsequent conduct in surrendering before police is a relevant
circumstance.
7. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties, it is apposite to note that once a conviction has been
recorded after full-fledged trial, the presumption of innocence which
operates in favour of the accused at the pre-trial stage stands
substantially displaced. The Appellate Court, therefore, exercises the
power of suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC with greater
circumspection and such power is not to be exercised as a matter of
course, more particularly, when the offences are heinous in nature.
Page No.# 4/5
8. While considering an application for suspension of sentence, the
Appellate Court does not undertake a detailed re-appreciation of
evidence but examines whether the appeal raises arguable or
substantial question warranting suspension of sentence pending
disposal of the appeal.
9. In a situation of the present nature, where the occurrence is stated to
have taken place within the confines of a house and the
accused/applicant was admittedly present with the victim
immediately prior to the recovery of her dead body, the facts relating
to the circumstances leading to the death of the victim, would be
especially within the knowledge of the accused/applicant. In such
circumstances, the principle embodied under Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act assumes significance, which casts a burden upon
the person having special knowledge of such facts to offer a plausible
explanation.
10. At this stage, this Court does not find any explanation forthcoming
from the accused/applicant as to what transpired during the relevant
period when he, the victim and their minor child were present
together in the house or as to the circumstances, in which the victim
met her death. Absence of such explanation, assumes significance at
least for the limited purpose of considering the present prayer for
suspension of sentence.
11. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the facts that the
applicant stands convicted for an offence punishable with
imprisonment of life and having regard to the circumstance emerging
from the evidence on record, this Court does not find that the present
case is one where discretion under Section 389 CrPC should not be
Page No.# 5/5
exercised in favour of the applicant at this stage.
12. Accordingly, the present Application stands dismissed.
13. It is clarified that the observation made herein are only for the purpose
of deciding the present application and shall not influence the final
adjudication of the connected Appeal.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
