Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010005782024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) I.A.(Crl.)/131/2024 MD. AKHRUL ISALM @ FAKARUDDIN S/O ABDUL KHALEK VILL.- KACHAKHAITY P.S.- RUPAHI HAT IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE P.P. ASSAM. 2:ABDUL MANNAN S/O LATE HUBY ALI VILL.- KACHAKHAITY P.S.- RUPAHI HAT IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. P BORAH Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Page No.# 2/4 16.06.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J] Heard Ms. K.M. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the opposite party-respondents State. 2. The instant application under Section 389, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [presently, Section 430, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] is preferred seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against the applicant-appellant and for his release on bail. 3. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying criminal appeal, Criminal Appeal no. 35/2024 against a Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon [‘the Trial Court’] in Sessions [T-1] Case no. 278[N]/2012. In the trial of Sessions [T-1] Case no. 278[N]/2012, five accused persons faced the trial for charges framed under Section 325, and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted four of the five accused persons from the aforesaid charges, save and except the applicant-appellant. The applicant-appellant has been found guilty for the offences under Section 302, IPC and Section 323, IPC. For the offence under Section 302, IPC, the applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default stipulation. For the offence under Section 323, IPC, the applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with default stipulation. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the evidence/materials on record including the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the testimony of the two Medical Officers, who performed autopsy on the deadbody of the deceased and examined the injured witnesses, P.W.7 and P.W.8 on the date of the incident. Page No.# 3/4 5. The incident occurred on 28.08.2011 within the compound of the dwelling house of the deceased, Sahera Khatun. The two daughters of the deceased were examined as P.W.7 and P.W.8. From the testimony of the Autopsy Doctor, P.W.10 and the Post-Mortem Examination Report [Ext.-4], it can be noticed that the deceased sustained a number of injuries on her person including one on the head resulting in united fracture over right fronto parietal region. All the injuries sustained by the deceased were opined to be ante-mortem in nature and caused by blunt force impact. P.W.7 and P.W.8 who were two daughters of the deceased, testified as regards the assault, implicating the applicant-appellant. P.W.7 and P.W.8 also sustained injuries on their persons and the Medical Officers who examined them on the date of the incident itself, had found injuries on their persons. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses P.W.7 and P.W.8 would fall in the category of injured witness. 6. A contention has been advanced to the effect that P.W.7 and P.W.8 apart from being related witnesses, were also interested witnesses. Such contention would require a detail appreciation of the evidence on record and the same cannot be gone into while considering an application under Section 389, CrPC. Law is otherwise settled that the testimony of an injured witness is to be considered at the higher pedestal and a witness even if a related witness, may not be an interested witness. 7. It is settled proposition that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302, IPC, the Court is to consider all the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after he has been committed, after he has been convicted for committing serious offence of murder, etc. 8. Having gone through the evidence/materials on record including the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses including the testimony of injured witnesses and the medical evidence, for the purpose of consideration of the instant application preferred under Section 389, CrPC, we are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has not been able to make a case for suspension of execution of the sentence passed against him and for his Page No.# 4/4 release on bail, at this stage, on the afore-mentioned parameters. Consequently, the instant application is found bereft of any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of considering the prayer for suspension of execution of the sentence and grant of bail to the applicant-appellant and the same shall not be construed as observations made with regard to the merits of the connected appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant