Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010030812024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/150/2024 ZAKIR HUSSAIN LASKAR @ JAKOI S/O LATE ISLAM UDDIN LASKAR, VILL.- NIZ-VERNERPUR (LALACHERRA), P.S.- LALA, DIST.- HAILAKANDI (ASSAM). VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. TO BE REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:MUSSTT. AKLIMA BEGUM LASKAR W/O LATE ALIM UDDIN LASKAR VILL.- JOYKRISHNAPUR (SOKALARPOR) P.S.- LALA DIST.- HAILAKANDI (ASSAM) PIN- 788163 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR. A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.A./44/2024 ZAKIR HUSSAIN LASKAR @ JAKOI S/O LATE ISLAM UDDIN LASKAR VILL.- NIZ-VERNERPUR (LALACHERRA) P.S.- LALA DIST.- HAILAKANDI (ASSAM). VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. TO BE REP. BY THE P.P. ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 2:MUSSTT. AKLIMA BEGUM LASKAR W/O LATE ALIM UDDIN LASKAR VILL.- JOYKRISHNAPUR (SOKALARPOR) P.S.- LALA DIST.- HAILAKANDI (ASSAM) PIN- 788163. ------------ Advocate for : MR. L R MAZUMDER Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 09/09/2025 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State. 2. The applicant has prayed for suspension of the sentence imposed upon the applicant pursuant to the judgement dated 04/01/2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in sessions case No. 2/2017, by which the applicant has been convicted under section 302 IPC. 3. The facts of the case is that the applicant had been convicted on the ground of killing his Father and Uncle with a dao and the learned trial Court had based its conviction on the testimony of two eye witnesses, i.e. PW-2 and PW-10. PW-2 is the son of the Uncle of the appellant, while PW-10 is an independent witness, having no relation to the applicant. 4. The counsel for the applicant submits that as the names of the eye witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR, the trial was vitiated. He also submits that the evidence of PW-12 would show that nobody was present at the place of occurrence. As such, PW-2 and PW-10 could not have been at the place of occurrence Page No.# 3/3 at the time when the incident occurred, when PW-12 had given his testimony that no one was present when he went to the place of occurrence. He also submits that though the Uncle had died at the place of occurrence, the father of the appellant died during the trial proceeding. However, his statement was not recorded by the Police or the Magistrate. 5. The learned APP, on the other hand, submits that the testimony of PW-12 would go to show that by the time the PW-12 had gone to the place of occurrence, the injured father had already been shifted to the hospital. PW-12 had also not witnessed the incident as he had arrived at the place of occurrence, after the incident had occurred. The learned APP submits that when there are eye witnesses to the crime, especially independent eye witnesses, there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the eye witnesses. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The evidence of PW-12 clearly goes to show that PW-12 had appeared at the place of occurrence only after the incident had occurred and he was not a witness to the assault made on the father of the applicant or the uncle. The evidence of PW- 12 and PW-10 clearly show that they were eye witnesses to the applicant being the perpetrator of the assault on his father and uncle, with a dao. 8. On considering the above, we do not find any ground to allow the application. The same is accordingly rejected. 9. IA stands disposed off. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant