Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010038102023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/223/2023 ROHIT GATOWAR S/O SRI BHARAT GHATOWAR RESIDENT OF BHULUKUTING TEA ESTATE BORTING NAWHALIA UNDER GOLAGHAT PS DIST GOLAGHAT ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR . REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:BHARAT GHATOWAR S/O LATE BHANDA GHATOWAR RESIDENT OF PURANALINE BHULUKUTING TEA ESTATE BORTING NAWHALIA UNDER GOLAGHAT PS DIST GOLAGHAT ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR UJJAL CHOUDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR . Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : --06.06.2025 [M. Choudhury, J] Heard Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party, State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 389, Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC], 1973 is preferred seeking suspension of execution of sentence passed against the applicant-appellant and for his release on bail. The applicant-appellant has preferred the accompanying criminal appeal, CRL.A(J)/43/2023 against a Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat [‘the trial court’, for short] in Sessions Case no. 13/2018. By the Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2022, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default stipulations. 3. The Paper Book has already been prepared. 4. On prima facie perusal of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence, it is noticed that the deceased died of a stab injury. The learned trial court has opined that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one. Two prosecution witnesses had deposed to have witnessed the incident. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that there are inconsistencies in the testimony of a nos. of prosecution witnesses. 6. For consideration of the application, though the State has not filed any objection, we have gone through the evidence/materials on record available in the Paper Book. It is settled that while considering the application for suspension of the execution of the sentence at the stage under Section 389 CrPC, what is to be looked into is whether there is something Page No.# 3/3 palpable or apparent on the face of the record on the basis of which the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The appellate court while considering an application under Section 389, CrPC is not supposed to reappreciate the evidence meticulously to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here and there in the case of the prosecution. 7. Having regard to the eye witness accounts and the medical evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has not been able to made out a prima facie case for suspension of execution of the sentence passed against him. Resultantly, the instant application is rejected. 8. 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