Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010115332025 2026:GAU-AS:1464- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/588/2025 SAHABUDDIN ALOM AND 2 ORS S/O MD. ISAMUL, R/O VILL. BISANPUR, WARD NO. 4, P.O. DEVPURA, P.S. NAWKOTHI, DIST. BEGUSARAI, STATE BIHAR, PIN 848201 2: SIKANDER KUMAR S/O GANGA RAM R/O VILL. BISANPUR WARD NO. 3 P.O. DEVPUR P.S. NAWKOTHI DIST. BEGUSARAI STATE- BIHAR PIN 848201 3: SANTOSH KUMAR S/O RAMJI RAM R/O VILL. BISANPUR WARD NO. 3 P.O. DEVPURA P.S. NAWKOTHI DIST. BEGUSARAI STATE BIHAR PIN 84820 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P K DAS, MR. M BARUAH Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.A./207/2025 SAHABUDDIN ALOM AND 2 ORS S/O MD. ISAMUL R/O VILL. BISANPUR WARD NO 4 P.O. DEVPURA P.S. NAWKOTHI DIST. BEGUSARAI DIST. BIHAR PIN 848201 2: SIKANDER KUMAR S/O GANGA RAM R/O VILL. BISANPUR WARD NO. 3 P.O. DEVPUR P.S. NAWKOTHI DIST. BEGUSARAI STATE- BIHAR PIN 848201 3: SANTOSH KUMAR S/O RAMJI RAM R/O VILL. BISANPUR WARD NO. 3 P.O. DEVPURA P.S. NAWKOTHI DIST. BEGUSARAI STATE BIHAR PIN 848201 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR P K DAS Page No.# 3/4 Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 05.02.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. P K Das, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. R R Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 430 of the BNSS, for suspending the sentence awarded to the applicants, in relation to the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No. T1/06/2019, by which the applicants had been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC. 3. The applicants’ counsel submits that there is no eye witness to the crime and in the evidence of PW-14, PW-14 had stated that he did not know the cause of death of the deceased and he did not see the quarrel between the accused persons. Further, the Investigating Officer (PW-17) in his evidence had admitted the fact that PW-2 did not tell him that the applicants wanted to flee from the place of occurrence. He accordingly submits that the application for suspension of the sentence should be allowed, as the prosecution had failed to prove the case of murder against the applicants. 4. Mr. R R Kaushik, learned APP, Assam, on the other hand submits that the evidence of PWs-1 & 2 clearly shows that the circumstantial evidence and the fact that the applicants wanted to flee from the place of occurrence, proved the Page No.# 4/4 guilt of the applicants. Further, though the applicants were roommates of the deceased and were present at the time blood was oozing out from the stomach of the deceased, which showed that the wound was a fresh wound, the applicants have not thrown any light as to how the deceased had been inflicted with the injury. He submits that when there was no attempt made by the applicants in their examination under Section 313 CrPC, to explain the wound that had been inflicted upon the deceased, the same was an added link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the applicants in killing the deceased. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also seen the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. 6. On considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and on considering the fact that no explanation has been made by the applicants, as to how the deceased was inflicted with the wound on his body which ultimately led to his death, we are of the prima facie view that the sentence imposed upon the applicants should not be suspended at this stage, 7. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant