Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010130162025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/759/2025 KAMAL HUSSAIN S/O LATE ABUL HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIKARI PATHAR, PO AND PS BAKALIA, DIST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, 782482 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:MD. SAFIQUL RAHMAN @ SAFIUDDIN RAHMAN S/O MD. ABDUL MANNAN VILLAGE DEBOSTHAN PS MURAJAR PO DEBOSTHAN BAZAR DIST NAGAON 78248 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R A CHOUDHURY, M. ROBBANI,Z A LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 28.07.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. M. Robbani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R.R. Page No.# 2/3 Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS) for suspending the sentence pending disposal of the present appeal and release of the applicant/appellant on bail. The applicant’s case is that he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for having caused the death of his wife by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2023 passed in Sessions Case No.44/2011, arising out of Bakalia P.S. Case o.63/2010. 3. The applicant’s counsel submits that the applicant has thereafter been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months. 4. The applicant’s counsel submits that the incarceration of the applicant in judicial custody has led to financial hardship and instability of the applicant’s mother and children. Further, there has been a loss of family reputation and social standing. The emotional trauma and distress that has been inflicted on the applicant’s children due to the applicant’s incarceration is also leading to them withdrawing from the community. The applicant’s counsel submits that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside, inasmuch as, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the applicant was the cause of the death of his wife, as the applicant’s wife had died due to an epileptic seizure and not due to strangulation. He accordingly submits that in view of the above reasons, the sentence imposed upon the applicant should be suspended, till Page No.# 3/3 final disposal of the appeal. 5. Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that though the applicant was last seen with his wife and though he had taken the plea that his wife had died due to epileptic seizure, the evidence of Medical Doctor (PW-5) had proved that the death of the applicant’s wife was due to asphyxia resulting from throttling/strangulation. Mr. R.R. Kaushik accordingly submits that as there is enough evidence to show that the applicant was the cause of the death of the wife, the applicant’s application should be dismissed. Further, the evidence of PW-3 is to the effect that when he woke up after hearing a hue and cry coming from the house of the applicant, he went to the house of the applicant, where he saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the bed and that the applicant was the only person present in the house. 6. On considering all the above, we are of the view that prayer of the applicant for suspending the sentence cannot be allowed at this stage. Accordingly the application of the applicant is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant