Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010163722025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/905/2025 in Crl.A./323/2025 BIPUL DEKA SON OF LATE KULEN DEKA R/O VILLAGE NASATRA P/S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM-781381 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : M K BORAH Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 22.06.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. M. K. Borah, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. This application under Section 430 B.N.S.S. is for suspension of the sentence awarded to the applicant, pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 18.6.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rangia, Kamrup, in Sessions Case Page No.# 2/2 No. 13/2018, arising out of Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 201/2016, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The applicant's counsel submits that there is no eyewitness proving that the applicant had caused the death of the deceased. 3. The learned APP, on the other hand, submits that the deceased and the applicants were brothers, who were all living in the same house. Further, the axe that had been used for killing the deceased had been recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the applicant. He accordingly submits that the application should be rejected. 4. We have heard the learned counsels of the parties. 5. Besides considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, we find that the applicant has admitted to killing his brother while answering question No. 36 during his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC. Not only has he admitted to killing his brother, but he has also given the reason for the same, which apparently corroborates the prosecution case. 6. On considering the fact that the final hearing of this case has been fixed on 06.08.2026 and keeping in view the above, we are not inclined to allow the application. The application is accordingly rejected at this stage. 7. Any finding or observation made in this order today shall not be construed to be the final finding or observation made at the time of hearing the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant