In suspended sentence applications under Section 389 Cr.P.C., 1973, the High Court noted that seriousness of the offence, gravity, and measurable time to hearing preclude suspension, rejecting bail during trial as a standalone factor for murder convictions.
Application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C., 1973 rejected.
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.# 1/4
GAHC010221902022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/684/2022
BILLAL HUSSAIN
S/O SAHADAT ALI, VILLAGE TINTILA,PS AND DIST KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
2:BADSHA MANDAL S/O LATE IMAN ALI MANDAL
VILLAGE TINTILA PS AND DIST KOKRAJHAR ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Linked Case : Crl.A./288/2022
BILLAL HUSSAIN S/O SAHADAT ALI
VILLAGE TINTILA PS AND DIST KOKRAJHAR ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/4
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM
2:BADSHA MANDAL S/O LATE IMAN ALI MANDAL
VILLAGE TINTILA PS AND DIST KOKRAJHAR ASSAM
-----------Advocate for : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 08-02-2023
(Malasri Nandi, J)
Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan , learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
Page No.# 3/4
based on circumstantial evidence and the accused was not present at home when the wife of the applicant was found dead in the morning hours. He has further submitted that it is well settled that unless chain of circumstances is complete and each link in the chain is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, no accused can be convicted thereupon. He has also contended that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the case against the accused is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts without leaving any link which may be compatible with his innocence. It is also submitted that in a case of this nature, there must be a chain of circumstances and no conviction can be based on a single circumstance.
In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a case law2022 LiveLaw(SC)503 Sabitri Samantaray vs State of Odisha.
In the case of [Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 5 SCC 230], it was held that-
Page No.# 4/4
“while considering the application for suspension of sentence, seriousness of the offence; nature of accusation; the gravity of the offence and the normal practice is not to suspend the sentence. The fact that accused was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty does not per-se warrant suspension of sentence. Moreover, where the appeal is likely to be heard in measurable distance of time, the suspension of sentence is not to be allowed.”
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence and sentences awarded to the applicant can be suspended pending appeal.
Whether the fact that the applicant was on bail during trial and maintained good conduct warrants suspension of sentence.
Whether suspension of sentence is appropriate when the appeal has been pending for less than a year pending a measurable time to be heard.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sabitri Samantaray vs State of OdishaReferred¶34
2022 LiveLaw(SC)503 Sabitri Samantaray vs State of Odisha
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Applied¶37
(2008) 5 SCC 230 Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BILLAL HUSSAIN
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
