Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010152832025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/850/2025 AIJUL ALI @ AIJUL RAHMAN @ KALIA SON OF YOUSUF ALI VILLAGE RANGAJAN BORBEEL P/S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:BAKUL SAIKIA SON OF LATE KANAKESWAR SAIKIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOBARIHALI GAON P/S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : ARMANUL HAQUE BHUYAN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. In Crl.A./300/2025 AIJUL ALI @ AIJUL RAHMAN @ KALIA SON OF YOUSUF ALI, VILLAGE RANGAJAN, BORBEEL, P/S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:BAKUL SAIKIA SON OF LATE KANAKESWAR SAIKIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOBARIHALI GAON P/S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : ARMANUL HAQUE BHUYAN, MS. L WAJEEDA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A DUTTA (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 03/12/2025 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. A.H. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, who submits that this application under section 430 BNSS, for suspending the sentence inflicted upon the applicant, pursuant to his conviction under section 302 IPC vide impugned judgement dated 23/06/2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur, in Sessions case No. 230 (NL)/2023 should be allowed. 2. The applicant’s counsel submits that there is a contradiction in the contents of the FIR vis-à-vis the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 3. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and APP, Assam, on the other hand, submits that when there is an eye witness to the crime in question, whose evidence has not been shaken, it would not be proper for this Court to suspend the sentence. 4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Page No.# 3/3 5. The evidence of PW-22 is to the effect that the thin person (appellant) had stabbed the deceased when the deceased had caught hold of the fat person. 6. The evidence of PW-37 shows that the PWs-8 & 23 had identified the appellant during the TIP. PWs-8 & 23 had also stated in their evidence that they had seen the appellant and other fat person riding away on a bike carrying the stolen goat. PW-22 had also identified the appellant through V.C. on the date of giving his evidence. 7. Considering the above, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the applicant. The application is accordingly rejected. However, any observation and finding made by us in this order, shall not be construed to be the final finding or observation made by us during disposal of the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant