Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010175712025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/858/2025 SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O. MD. NAYAN ALI, R/O. NO. 5 BHANDARA, P/S. MANIKPUR, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I U CHOWDHURY, S NAZNIN,MR. A AHMED,MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.A./303/2025 SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O. MD. NAYAN ALI R/O. NO. 5 BHANDARA P/S. MANIKPUR DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 ------------ Advocate for : MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 07-08-2026 (S. Jahan, J) Heard Mr. I.U. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. This is an application for suspension of sentence imposed upon the applicant by Judgment and Order dated 04/07/2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 12(M) of 2019, by which the applicant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine and default stipulation. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no ocular evidence in the instant case and that the present case was stated to be proved on the circumstantial evidence, which according to him, did not form a complete chain. He further submits that the applicant was also charged under Section 304-B of the IPC. However, he was acquitted from the said charge. He further submits that there is no incriminating evidence to the effect that any recovery was made from the place of occurrence, establishing the complicity of the applicant. Page No.# 3/3 4. On the other hand, Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. P.P for the State submits that the chain of circumstances in the present case is complete to the effect that the deceased was tortured beforehand and on the day of occurrence, the father of the accused, that is the applicant, called up the father of the deceased saying that the applicant had killed the deceased. She also stated that there were other witnesses, who had seen the applicant quarrelling with his wife, that is, the deceased and tying up her hands before the occurrence had taken place. She also stated that after the death of the deceased, other witnesses had seen the hands of the deceased being tied up, which becomes a chain in the circumstance. Further, she submits that there was no explanation on the part of the applicant under 106 of the Evidence Act. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and moreso, looking at the circumstances appearing in the instant case, this Court does not deem it fit to suspend the sentence and to release the applicant on bail. 6. The petition is as such rejected at this stage. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant