Application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of a life sentence was rejected. The court noted the presence of an eye witness and refused to allow suspension despite the applicant's claim that the prosecution evidence was false.
Application for suspension of sentence rejected and disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010194952022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/639/2022
HAREKRISHNA THAKURIA S/O LATE MOHIN THAKURIA, VILL.- PUB-SESAMUKH, P.O.- HAJO, P.S.- HAJO, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781102. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY P.P., ASSAM. 2:JAYANTA DAS S/O LATE FANIDHAR DAS VILL.- SESAMUKH (KUMARPARA) P.O.- HAJO P.S.- HAJO DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 78110
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
08.02.2023
(M. Zothankhuma, J.)
Heard Mr. H. Das, leaned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
Page No.# 2/2
This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspending the sentence imposed upon the applicant to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default S.I. for 2 (two) months.
The applicant’s counsel submits that the applicant was convicted under Section 302 IPC. He submits that the only eye witness to the alleged incident was the brother of the deceased and no weapon was recovered. He submits that the allegation made against the applicant is false.
Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that the eye witness (PW-8) had clearly stated the fact that the applicant had cut the backside of the neck of the deceased. She also submits that PW-2, i.e. the headman of the village had heard other villagers saying that the applicant was shouting that he had killed the deceased.
On considering the fact that there is an eye witness to the case, we are not inclined to allow the present application for suspending the sentence.
I.A. is accordingly rejected and disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow an application for suspension of a life sentence imposed on the applicant convicted under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the existence of an eye witness precludes the suspension of the sentence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harekrishna Thakuria
The State of Assam
Michael Zothankhuma
Malasri Nandi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
