Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010021172025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/136/2025 SRI SUMANTA NATH AND ORS S/O MAHENDRA KR. NATH VILLAGE - MUKTACHERRA PART IV PS - LALA DISTRICT - HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 2: SRI ASHISH KUMAR NATH S/O LT ANANDA MOHAN NATH R/O - VILLAGE MUKTACHERRA PART IV PS - LALA DISTRICT - HAILAKANDI ASSAM 3: SUMESH NATH S/O SUMANTA NATH R/O - VILLAGE - MUKTACHERRA PART IV PS - LALA DISTRICT - HAILAKANDI ASSAM 4: SAJAL NATH S/O - LT SUDHIR NATH R/O - VILLAGE - MUKTACHERRA PART IV PS - LALA DISTRICT - HAILAKANDI ASSAM 5: ANANDA MOHAN NATH S/O - LT MAHENDRA MOHAN NATH R/O - VILLAGE - MUKTACHERRA PART IV PS - LALA DISTRICT - HAILAKANDI ASSA VERSUS Page No.# 2/8 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 1 ORS REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI ARATHI NATH W/O RABINDRA KUMAR NATH R/O - WARD NO 2 RAJMOHAN SARANI UMEDNAGAR NEAR BLOC ELEMENTARY OFFICE PS - LALA DISTRICT - HAILAKANDI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : AOMAN KHUNGKHRA BORO, MR. N BARDOLOI,MR. R. RAMEEZ,MR S.MITRA,MR. S MITRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.A./54/2025 SUMANTA NATH AND 4 ORS S/O MAHENDRA KR. NATH VILL. - MUKTACHERRA PART IV P.S. - LALA DIST. - HAILAKANDI ASSAM 2: ASHISH NATH S/O - LT ANANDA MOHAN NATH R/O - VILL. - MUKTACHERRA PART IV P.S. - LALA DIST. - HAILAKANDI ASSAM 3: SUMESH NATH S/O SUMANTHA NATH R/O - VILL. - MUKTACHERRA PART IV Page No.# 3/8 P.S. - LALA DIST. - HAILAKANDI ASSAM 4: SAJAL NATH S/O - LT SUDHIR NATH R/O - VILL. - MUKTACHERRA PART IV P.S. - LALA DIST. - HAILAKANDI ASSAM 5: ANANDA MOHAN NATH S/O - LT MAHENDRA MOHAN NATH R/O - VILL. - MUKTACHERRA PART IV P.S. - LALA DIST. - HAILAKANDI ASSAM VERSUS The State of Assam and Anr REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:ARATHI NATH W/O - RABINDRA KUMAR NATH R/O - WARD NO. 2 RAJMOHAN SARANI UMEDNAGAR NEAR BLOC ELEMENTARY OFFICE P.S. - LALA DIST. - HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN - 788163 ------------ Advocate for : AOMAN KHUNGKHRA BORO Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for The State of Assam and Anr Page No.# 4/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 01.08.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State and Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The present application under Section 430 BNSS, 2023 is for suspension of the sentence inflicted upon the applicants vide sentence order dated 16.11.2024, passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Sessions Case No.79/2015, arising out of Lala P.S. Case No. 317/2018. The sentence order had been passed on account of the applicants having been convicted by the learned Trial Court under Sections 302/149, 324/149, 325/149 and Section 148 of the IPC vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2024. The applicants were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1(one) year for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2(two) years in relation to the offence under Section 324/149 of the IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3(three) years with fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2(two) months for the offence under Section 325/149 of the IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3(three) months for the offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC. 3. The applicant’s counsel submits that the deceased Amrit Mohan Nath had expired due to a fight between his family members and the applicants, who are Page No.# 5/8 all related. He submits that there was a property dispute at the centre of the dispute and it was in that context that a fight had started between the parties on 09.09.2008. 4. The applicant’s counsel submits that deceased Amrit Mohan Nath died due to his injuries on 10.09.2008 and an FIR dated 11.09.2008 was lodged by the daughter of the deceased namely, Smti. Arati Nath. The said FIR was registered as Lala P.S. Case No. 317/2008. Though the applicants have been convicted for the offences under the Sections of law enumerated above by the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court did not take into consideration the fact that a cross case had been filed by the applicant/appellant No.2, Ashish Kumar Nath, by way of an FIR dated 10.09.2008, which culminated into the registration of Lala P.S. Case No.314/2008 under Sections 341/325/326/34 of the IPC. He submits that charge-sheet has also been submitted by the case I.O. in Lala P.S. Case No.314/2008 and the same has been registered as G.R. Case No.1035/2008 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. G.R. Case No.1035/2008 is in the trial stage before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi and 5 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 10 prosecution witnesses. He submits that the accused persons in G.R. Case No.1035/2008 are PW-3, PW-4 and the deceased person namely, Amrit Mohan Nath. 5. The applicants’ counsel submits that the learned Trial Court should not have disposed off Sessions Case No.79/2015, by which the present applicants have been convicted, in view of the fact that the trial proceedings in G.R. Case No.1035/2008 have not been completed till date. He submits that in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal (Dead) & Ors., reported in (2003) 9 SCC 426, cross cases should Page No.# 6/8 be tried together by the same Court irrespective of the nature of the offence involved. He submits that the rationale behind the same is to avoid conflicting judgment over the same incident, as there is a likelihood of conflicting judgment, if two cross cases are disposed off by two different Courts. 6. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the charges framed in G.R. Case No.1035/2008 pertain to offences triable by a Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the same being a cross case, in relation to Sessions Case No.79/2015, G.R. Case No.1035/2008 should also be tried by the same Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi. 7. The learned counsel for the applicants further submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nathi Lal Vs. State of U.P, reported in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 145, cross cases must be decided on the basis of the evidence recorded in that particular case, without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. However, both the judgments in the cross cases must be pronounced by the learned Judge one after the other. 8. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that as the same has not been done in the present case, the questions on facts, which are to be decided in G.R. Case No.1035/2008 could be in conflict with the findings of the learned Trial Court in the case that has been put to challenge by way of the present Criminal Appeal 54/2025. He accordingly submits that G.R. Case No.1035/2008 should be heard by the same Sessions Court that had decided Sessions Case No.79/2015 and till then, the sentence inflicted upon the applicants/appellants pursuant to the impugned sentence order dated 16.11.2024 should be suspended. Accordingly, the applicants should be allowed to go on bail till final disposal of the appeal. Page No.# 7/8 9. Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, on the other hand submits that just because Sessions Case No.79/2015 has been disposed off and G.R. Case No.1035/2008 has not been disposed of, does not mean that the impugned judgment and order dated 14.11.2024 and the sentence imposed thereupon on 16.11.2024 are vitiated. She submits that the applicants can always file an application before the learned District & Sessions Judge’s Court, for transferring G.R. Case No.1035/2008 before the same Sessions Court that had disposed of Sessions Case No.79/2015. In any event, there is no ground for suspending the sentence and releasing the applicants on bail, keeping in view the fact that there is an eye witness to the crime, who had seen the applicants committing the crime. 10. Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also reiterates the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 11. On considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to how cross cases should be disposed of, we find at this stage, that there is nothing to show that the impugned judgment and order dated 14.11.2024 is vitiated due to no final decision being taken in G.R. Case No.1035/2008. 12. In the case of Mishrilal (Dead) (supra), the Supreme Court has held that cross cases should be tried together by the same Court irrespective of the nature of the offence involved. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nathi Lal(supra), each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been recorded in the concerned case, without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or argument urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge, one after the other. The fact remains that the Courts would have to decide whether cross cases exists and if it be so, it should be sent to the same Court for deciding G.R. Case Page No.# 8/8 No.1035/2008. In this regard, the applicants would have to move appropriate applications with regard to their stand that G.R. Case No.1035/2008 would have to decided by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, who had decided Sessions Case No.79/2015. 13. On considering the fact that the applicant Nos. 1 & 5 are both approximately 80 years old as on date, we hold that the impugned sentence imposed upon them, vide Sentence Order dated 16.11.2024, should remain suspended only in respect of the applicant Nos. 1 & 5. They are accordingly allowed to go on bail, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 14. The prayer for suspending the sentence in respect of the other applicants stands rejected. 15. The Interlocutory Application is accordingly disposed off. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant