Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010019022024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/344/2024 RAFIQUE UDDIN S/O LATE ABDUL MANNAN, VILL.- BAGARSANGAN, P.O.- KANIBAZAR, P.S.- PATHERKANDI, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. TO BE REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:ABDUL MUMIN S/O LATE IRFAN ALI VILL.- BAGARSANGAN P.O.- KANIBAZAR P.S.- PATHERKANDI DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788724 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B AHMED, MR K UDDIN,MR. A K AZAD,MR M HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 16-12-2025 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. A.K. Azad, learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State. This application has been made under Section 389(2) Cr.P.C. for suspension of the sentence awarded to the appellant in relation to the judgment dated 28-11-2023 passed by the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 77/2010, by which the appellant/ applicant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC. The applicant’s counsel submits that the finding of the learned Trial Court that the applicant was guilty of having committed the offence under Section 302 IPC has been made on the basis of interested prosecution witnesses Nos. 4 to 7. He submits that PW-4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased, while PWs-5, 6 & 7 are the brothers of the PW-4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esakkimuthu Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2025 0 INSC 880 had held that when witnesses are related/ interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection, inasmuch as, they are required to be met with a stricter standard of proof and deserve to be scrutinized in order to rule out any embellishment. He also submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Jabbar Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2022 0 SIR(SC) 5420 has held that the evidence of related witnesses can be rejected if there are material contradictions and inconsistencies found in their testimonies. He, accordingly, submits that the learned Trial Court did not consider the testimonies of PWs-4 to 7 with discerning scrutiny and as such, the evidence of PWs-4 to 7 cannot be made the basis for convicting the appellant. Page No.# 3/3 On the other hand, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam submits that there is nothing to show that the evidence of PWs-4 to 7 contradicted each other. She also submits that PW-2 is also an eye-witness who saw the appellant committing the crime of killing the deceased. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Md. Jabbar Ali (Supra), the Supreme Court had held that the evidence of related witnesses can be rejected if there are material contradiction and inconsistencies found in their testimonies. However, the applicant has not been able to show us the material contradictions and inconsistencies between the evidence of PWs-4 to 7. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Ram Vs. State of U.P., reported in (1998) 1 SCC 149, has held that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be discredited only because they are close relatives of the deceased. What is, however, required is that the Court must scrutinize the evidence with utmost care and caution. On considering the facts of the case, we are of the prima facie view that no case for suspension of the sentence has been made out. Accordingly, the application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant