Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010033982024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/277/2024 in Crl.A./78/2024 SHYAMA PRASAD GOSWAMI @ SEMA AND ANR. S/O LATE YADAV GOSWAMI R/O HATKHOLA GAON P.O.- LAHOAL DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. 2: GOJEN GOSWAMI S/O SHRI SHYAMA PRASAD GOSWAMI @ SEMA R/O HATKHOLA GAON P.O.- LAHOAL DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE P.P. ASSAM. 2:ROBIN DUTTA S/O LATE KOFUL DUTTA R/O MODER GOHAIN GAON P.O.- LAHOAL DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001. ------------ Advocate for : MR. K BORUAH Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 27.11.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. K. Boruah, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C., for suspending the sentence imposed upon the appellants/applicants on their conviction under Section 302 IPC, pursuant to the judgment dated 19.12.2023, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 149/2018. 3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 4. On a perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the eye witnesses, who are the wife and son of the deceased, have apparently seen the appellants assaulting the deceased with weapons. The son, who is PW1, is also an injured eye witness. PW2, who is the daughter-in-law, has also seen the incident. 5. On considering the above facts, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence imposed upon the appellants. Further, the paper book having been furnished to the parties and the matter being listed on 16.12.2025, the prayer for bail is rejected. 6. The above being said, Mr. K. Boruah, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submits that the appellant No. 1, Shyama Prasad Goswami Page No.# 3/3 @ Sema, has expired in the month of February, 2025. 7. The I.A. is accordingly rejected and disposed of. 8. Any observation or finding made in this order shall not be construed to be final observation or finding made by this Court at the time of final hearing of the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant