Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010205652024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/990/2024 KESHAV NATH S/O. LATE BUDHBOR NATH VILL. BASANAGHAT P/O. MANIPUR P/S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP ASSAM. 2:RUMI BORA W/O. LUHIT CHANDRA BORA VILL.- TARANGAPAR P/S. JAGIROAD DIST.- MORIGAON PIN-782410 ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MS. D L DEKA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Linked Case : Crl.A./342/2024 KESHAV NATH S/O. LATE BUDHBOR NATH, VILL. BASANAGHAT, P/O. MANIPUR, P/S. MORIGAON, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM. Page No.# 2/4 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:RUMI BORA W/O. LUHIT CHANDRA BORA VILL.- TARANGAPAR P/S. JAGIROAD DIST.- MORIGAON PIN-782410 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D L DEKA, MAUSAM NATH,MR. A BHATTACHARJEE,MR. M NATH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A TEWARI, AMICUS CURIAE(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 14.11 .2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State and Mr. A. Tewari, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 430 BNSS for suspending the sentence imposed upon the applicant/ appellant pursuant to the judgment dated 10.09.2024, passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon in POCSO Case No.295/2023, arising out of Jagiroad Page No.# 3/4 P.S. Case No.229/2022. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the applicant has been convicted only on the ground that he is an abettor of the crime committed by the co-accused Deep Jyoti Deka. He submits that there is no mention of the applicant in the FIR and that the name of the applicant cropped up for the first time only during the recording of her testimony by the learned Trial Court. He submits that in terms of the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in Samiran Begum Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2007 (4) GLT 207, Section 109 of the IPC is attracted when the three ingredients mentioned in Section 107 are found present. In the present case, there was no question of the applicant abetting the alleged crime committed by the main accused Deep Jyoti Deka, as the first two ingredients of instigating a person and engaging in conspiracy for doing of an illegal act did not arise. Further, in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement made by the victim, the applicant’s name was not mentioned. 4. The counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that the wording in Section 107 of the IPC clearly goes to show that there is no requirement for the three ingredients mentioned therein to be present together, for coming to a finding that there has been an abetment of an offence. The use of the word ‘or’ clearly goes to show that even if one of the ingredients is present, the provisions of Section 109 of the IPC is attracted. 5. In the present case, rape had been allegedly committed by the main accused Deep Jyoti Deka in the house of the applicant, who was in another room with another person. Even though the victim had shouted for help, no help had been forthcoming from the applicant. Page No.# 4/4 6. On considering the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Samiran Begum (supra), we are not sure that the finding of the learned Single Judge was to the effect that all the three ingredients mentioned in Section 107 was required to be present for coming to a finding that there had been abetment of an offence. The use of the word ‘or’ in Section 107 IPC between the various three ingredients, prima facie shows that there was no requirement for all the three ingredients being present together, for coming to a finding that there was abetment of an offence. In any event, we are of the prima facie view that as the applicant was apparently the owner of the house in which the crime had been committed, the sentence imposed upon the applicant should not be suspended at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the application under Section 430 BNSS is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant