Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010012352025 2025:GAU-AS:15784-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/375/2025 ABDUL MAZID S/O - LT NABI HUSSAIN R/O - BHITORSUTI P.S AND P.O. - TEZPUR, DIST - SONITPUR, PIN - 784001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:MD MUKTAR HUSSAIN S/O - MD IBRAHIM ALI R/O - VILL - RAJAGADHUWA PS - LAHARIGHAT DIST - MORIGAON ASSAM PIN - 78212 Advocate for the Petitioner : CHAYANIKA SARMA, MR B B NARZARY,MS. P SAHARIA,V KHAKHALARY,MR. P MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.A./135/2025 MD ABDUL MAZID S/O - LT NABI HUSSAIN R/O - BHITORSUTI P.S AND P.O. - TEZPUR DIST - SONITPUR Page No.# 2/6 PIN - 784001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:MD MUKTAR HUSSAIN S/O - MD IBRAHIM ALI R/O - VILL - RAJAGADHUWA PS - LAHARIGHAT DIST - MORIGAON ASSAM PIN - 782127 ------------ Advocate for : CHAYANIKA SARMA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 19.11.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP for the State and senior counsel, assisted by Ms. J. Saikia, learned counsel. 2. By filing this interlocutory application under section 430 of the BNSS, 2023, the applicant is seeking suspension of sentence imposed vide judgment and order of sentence dated 01.10.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 32/2021. By the said sentence, the applicant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with default stipulations for Page No.# 3/6 committing offence under section 302 of the IPC. 3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.06.2020, while the applicant, along with his deceased wife and child was sleeping at her matrimonial home, the wife was found to have been assaulted with a sharp weapon. There was profuse bleeding on the bed and underneath the bed and accordingly, one Gafar informed the Mahabhairab Police Out Post under Tezpur Police Station, resulting in registration of Mahabhairab OP GD Entry No. 481 dated 25.06.2020 regarding the incident. Subsequently, one Md. Muktar Hussain had lodged an FIR before the In-Charge of Mahabhairab Police Out Post under Tezpur Police Station, alleging that his sister, Musstt. Taslima Nasrin was killed by the applicant with a sharp cutting weapon, causing injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. The victim was shifted to the Tezpur Medical College & Hospital, where the doctor declared her dead. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined 13 (thirteen) witnesses and on closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the applicant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge held the applicant to be guilty of commission of offence under section 302 IPC. Accordingly, the sentence, as indicated hereinbefore, was imposed upon the applicant. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was on bail throughout the trial and he appeared before the learned Trial Court when the judgment was pronounced and sentence hearing was conducted. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the applicant has never violated any condition of bail, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence of the applicant. 6. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment cannot be Page No.# 4/6 sustained because of the fact that the prosecution had not examined one Gafar, on whose information the GD Entry was made. It is submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, the 4 (four) year old minor child of the petitioner was also in the same room, but the minor child and other relevant witnesses available in the locality were not examined. 7. It is further submitted that the prosecution had not been able to recover the weapon of assault and therefore, the applicant could not be connected with the commission of offence. 8. It is further submitted that in defence, the applicant did not take a plea of denial of his presence in the house and rather, admitted that the applicant was in the same room where the deceased had been killed. However, his defence that only when the minor child started crying at about 3.00 AM, he made a hue and cry and inmates of the house, including the informant, had seen the dead body, was disbelieved. It is further submitted that the applicant had not made any attempt to escape from the scene of occurrence and therefore, it is not believable that the applicant would murder his wife after 15 (fifteen) years of marriage. It is further submitted that as per the evidence of the I/O (PW-13), it can be gathered that the house of the applicant was shuttered with bamboo gate, which was tied with a rope. Accordingly, it is submitted that any person could have entered in the room of the applicant and commit the crime. Accordingly, it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely framed to the charge of murder of his wife and that the story of PW-2 of demanding dowry from his wife is not believable. 9. Per contra, the learned APP has referred to the objection filed by the State. She has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on the ground that the incident had occurred in the confines of the house of the applicant and Page No.# 5/6 the presence of others in the house could not be established. Accordingly, it is submitted that under section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden and the onus was on the applicant to prove as to what has actually happened in the confines of the house. It is further submitted that the postmortem report indicates several injuries suffered by the deceased, which includes multiple bone deep cuts. Accordingly, it is submitted that with the nature of injuries, it is not believable that the applicant would not have knowledge about the grievous assault. 10. It is submitted that the PW-2, who is the first informant, had provided the motive of murder because, as per his evidence, the applicant had demanded money from the deceased. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, as well as learned senior counsel for the State. 12. Considered the materials available on record. 13. At this stage, the Court is disinclined to evaluate the evidentiary value of the statement of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Nonetheless, in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the TCR has been perused. 14. It appears from the nature of evidence on record that on hue and cry being raised, when people gathered at the place of occurrence, the only inmates of the house where the wife of the applicant in injured condition lying are the applicant and his minor child. As per the evidence of PW-4, the wife of the applicant was lying unconscious on the bed in a pool of blood. There was blood on the bed and below the bed. The postmortem report reflects 3 (three) grievous injuries, indicating bone deep cut over the right side of the neck and 3 Page No.# 6/6 cm below the right angle of mouth, a similar bone deep cut on the right side of the neck, and an incised wound over the left hand on dorsal aspect above the wrist joint. 15. In view of the nature of injuries reflected in the postmortem report, at the stage of consideration of bail, it is very hard for the Court to accept that the applicant, who was sleeping on the same bed with his wife, would not have been disturbed from sleep by the nature of injuries which were found to have been inflicted on the injured wife, who was later on declared to be dead on arrival at the hospital. There is no material on record to suggest that an outsider had free access to the house of the applicant. 16. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that the materials which are available on record are not sufficient to make out a case of suspension of sentence awarded to the applicant because the applicant was the only adult member of the family in the house where the deceased was found dead/unconscious with bone deep cut injuries. 17. Resultantly, this application for suspension of sentence stands rejected and dismissed at this stage. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant