Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 688 (GAU)

Nizam Uddin Seikh v. State of Assam

2018-04-23

NELSON SAILO, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for Respondent No.1/State. 2. This application has been filed under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and for releasing the applicant on bail during the pendency of the related appeal. 3. Be it stated that, by the impugned judgment and order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Sessions Case No. 102/2012, appellant was convicted under Sections 449/302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as the substantive penalty. 4. We find from the record that first information was lodged by the informant P.W.4 stating that on 20.11.2008 at about 10 P.M., the accused had trespassed into the residence of the victim who was his neighbor, whereafter he committed rape on her and finally set her on fire leading to her death. On the basis of the first information, Silchar P.S. Case No.2403/08 was registered and, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 448/354/307/302 I.P.C. At the time of framing of charge, Trial Court framed charges under Sections 449/376/302 I.P.C. By the impugned judgment and order dated 21.09.2017, while the appellant was convicted and sentenced as above, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. 5. From the impugned judgment and order, we find that in addition to the dying declaration of the victim, Court Witness (C.W.) No. 1 Sri Prasad Rabidas in his testimony had clearly identified the appellant as the person who had run away from the place of occurrence towards his house. According to the testimony of C.W. No. 1, at the place of occurrence i.e., the residence of the victim, he saw the victim in a burnt condition and she told him that it was the appellant who had put her on fire and, thereafter, fled away. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that present is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant pending disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the prayer for suspension of sentence and for bail is rejected. 7. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that present is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant pending disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the prayer for suspension of sentence and for bail is rejected. 7. However, we make it clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the interlocutory application and shall not in any manner be construed to be our final opinion on merit. 8. Interlocutory application is dismissed.