Dismissed¶32

Sri Debojit Gogoi @ British and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC18 May 2025I.A.(Crl.)/610/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of execution of sentence; post-conviction bail; Section 389(2) CrPC; Section 389 CrPC; murder; Section 302 IPC; Section 34 IPC; common intention; eye-witness testimony; autopsy report; sharp cut wound; homicidal death; sword; patella fracture; jail injury; medical attention to prisoner; Sessions Case no. 99 [SS] of 2018; Sessions Judge Sivasagar; Criminal Appeal no. 256/2023; I.A.(Crl.)/610/2023; Gauhati High Court; application rejected.

What did the court decide?

Having taken note of the testimonies of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, the Court found no prima facie case to consider the plea of the applicants-appellants for suspension of sentence and release on bail as merited at this stage, and consequently rejected the application. ¶32

Sri Debojit Gogoi @ British and Anr. Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the execution of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life imposed on the applicants-appellants (convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC) should be suspended and they be released on bail under Section 389(2) CrPC, pending disposal of Criminal Appeal no. 256/2023.

¶32

Court's answer

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The testimony of the eye-witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6) implicating both accused-appellants in the sword assault on the deceased had prima facie remained unshaken, including that applicant no. 2 brought the sword concealed inside her sadar and handed it to applicant no. 1, who inflicted a blow on the left side of the deceased's neck; the autopsy evidence established homicidal death by a sharp cutting weapon.

¶28

Key takeaways

In considering a prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Court is to consider all relevant factors such as the nature of accusation, the manner of commission of the crime, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing a convicted accused on bail.obiter¶29
The injury sustained by applicant no. 2 was found to have received due medical attention at the Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh; if she needs further treatment for the patella injury, the Jail authority shall provide proper medical attention.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Manish Choudhury and Yarenjungla Longkumer, JJ.) rejected an application under Section 389(2) CrPC by two convicts — applicants-appellants in connected Criminal Appeal no. 256/2023 — seeking suspension of execution of their sentence and release on bail. They had been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case no. 99 [SS] of 2018 for murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each (default: three months simple imprisonment). Counsel urged age and the jail-bathroom fall of applicant no. 2 on 09.12.2023 causing patella fracture (treated at Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, discharged 22.12.2023). The State opposed, pointing to eye-witness testimony corroborated by medical/autopsy evidence. Perusing the trial record, the Court held that the eye-witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.3-P.W.6) had clearly implicated both appellants in the sword assault; the testimony that applicant no. 2 brought the sword hidden in her sadar and handed it to applicant no. 1, who cut the deceased's neck, had prima facie remained unshaken, and the autopsy (Ext.-2/P.W.2) showed homicidal death. Finding no prima facie case to suspend sentence or grant bail at that stage, the application was rejected; the Jail authority was directed to provide proper medical attention to applicant no. 2 if further treatment is needed.

Page No. 1/4

GAHC010153152023

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/610/2023

¶6

SRI DEBOJIT GOGOI @ BRITISH AND ANR S/O LATE TUKHESWAR GOGOI,

¶7

RESIDENT OF THOWRA MAJ GAON, PS DEMOW, DIST SIVASAGAR, ASSAM

¶8

2: SMTI RUPA GOGOI W/O LATE TUKHESWAR GOGOI RESIDENT OF THOWRA MAJ GAON PS DEMOW DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MRS R BEGUM,MS N KASHYAP

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 19.05.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J.]

¶17

Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party, State of Assam.

¶18

Page No. 2/4

¶19

The instant application is preferred under Section 389[2], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against the applicantsappellants in a Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case no. 99 [SS] of 2018 and for their release on bail.

¶20

The applicants as the appellants, have preferred the connected criminal appeal, Criminal Appeal no. 256/2023 against the Judgment dated 09.06.2023 and an Order on Sentence passed on 20.06.2023, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case no. 99 [SS] of 2018. By the Judgment dated 09.06.2023, the learned trial court have convicted both the applicants-appellants for the offence under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. By the Order on Sentence dated 20.06.2023, the applicants-appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another three months each.

¶21

Mr. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the applicants-appellants has submitted that while undergoing the sentence, the applicant no. 2 had sustained injuries on 09.12.2023 as she fell in the jail bathroom. The applicant no. 2 was, thereafter, admitted in the Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh and later on, she was discharged on 22.12.2023. She had sustained fracture injuries of patella. Mr. Kataki has further submitted that considering the age of the applicant no. 2, the case of the applicant no. 2 may be considered under Section 389, CrPC. He has further submitted that both the applicants-appellants have been undergoing sentence since the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence.

¶22

Ms. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the opposite party, State has vehemently objected to the prayer made in this application contending that there were eye-witnesses to the incident of assault and the eye-witnesses testimony was duly corroborated by the medical evidence, which are in the form of testimony of the autopsy doctor and the autopsy report.

¶23

The trial court records were called for and have been received. We have perused the

¶24

Page No. 3/4

¶25

materials available in the case records of Sessions Case no. 99 [SS] of 2018, including the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the autopsy report, in original.

¶26

During the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined eleven nos. of witnesses and exhibited twelve nos. of documents. In addition, a material exhibit was also exhibited.

¶27

The prosecution witnesses – P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 – in their testimony had clearly implicated both the accused-appellants in the act of assault on the deceased by a sword. Their testimony on the point that the applicant no. 2 had brought a sword, the alleged the weapon of assault, to the place of occurrence by keeping it hidden inside of her sadar has prima facie remained unshaken. As soon as the quarrel took place between the applicant no. 1 and the deceased in the courtyard of the house of the deceased, the applicant no. 2 handed over the sword to the applicant no. 1. The applicant no. 1 by taking the weapon of assault from the applicant no. 2, inflicted a blow on the left side of the neck of the deceased. The autopsy report [Ext.-2] had recorded a sharp cut wound over the left side of the neck, just below the angle of mandible of 6’’ 2’’ 2½’’. The autopsy doctor [P.W.2], in his testimony, had opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to syncope [shock & haemorrhage] as a result of the injuries sustained by the person for the wound caused by a sharp cutting weapon. He had testified that the injuries, as found on the neck of the deceased, was sufficient to cause of the death of a normal person and the nature of the death was homicidal in nature.

¶28

It is settled proposition that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302, IPC, the Court is to consider all the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after he has been committed, after he has been convicted for committing serious offence of murder, etc.

¶29

The injury sustained by the applicant no. 2 is found to have received due medical attention. The applicant no. 2 was treated in the Assam Medical College and Hospital,

¶30

Page No. 4/4

¶31

Dibrugarh. It is observed that if the applicant no. 2 needs any further treatment in connection with the injury she had sustained at patella, the Jail authority shall do the needful to provide proper medical attention to the applicant no. 2.

¶32

Having taken note of the testimonies of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, we do not find any prima facie case to consider the plea of the applicants-appellants for suspension of the sentence passed against them and for their release on bail, as a merited one, at this stage. Consequently, the application is rejected.

¶33

JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Sri Debojit Gogoi @ British and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Debojit Gogoi @ British and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor Pathak @ Kamal Pathak Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Suniram Hembrom Vs the State of Assam

Mohammad Anuwar Vs State of Assam and Others