Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010043252026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/236/2026 BAKKAR ALI S/O LATE KHOIMUDDIN SK R/O VILL- BELGURI PART-II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM 2:MUSSTT. SONABHAN BIBI W/O LATE MD. DELBOR ALI R/O VILL- BELGURI PART-II P.O.- BELGURI P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783335 ------------ Advocate for : MR. I HAQUE Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 09.09.2026 Heard Mr. I Haque, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Also heard Mr. R. Islam, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. 2. By this application filed under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023, the applicant has prayed for suspension of sentence and for allowing him to go on bail in connection with judgment and order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Sessions Case No. 194/2012. By the said judgment and order, the applicant was convicted under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine and default stipulation. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the conviction was based on evidence of three eye witnesses i.e. PW1, PW6 and PW7. He, however, submits that there are contradictions in the statement of the eye witnesses, to the effect that although PW1 had stated that she was there at the place of occurrence when the incident took place but in her statement before the police, which was confirmed by the Investigating Officer in his examination before the Trial Court that she did not state before the Investigating Officer that she was present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that contradictions were also there with regard to statements of PW6, who stated that he was there at Page No.# 3/6 the place of occurrence and he had seen the applicant dealing a knife blow on the belly of the deceased, but he stated before the police that he did not state about the same rather he stated that upon hearing hue and cry, he proceeded to the place of occurrence. Similar is the discrepancy in the statement of PW7. The learned Counsel also submits that although there are evidence on record that the deceased was taken to the hospital after the incident but no injury reports or no reports of the treating doctor was exhibited or was available in the record. He submits that the deceased died after 11 days of the incident and the death was not connected with the incident in question. 4. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that post mortem report clearly shows that the deceased died due to injuries received on his body and there is nothing on record to show that after the incident, the deceased got involved in any other assault or fight. As such, he submits that the deceased died due to the assault sustained during the incident. He also submits that there are eye witnesses to prove the case against the applicant. 5. Mr. R. Islam, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the version of the eye witnesses i.e. PW1, PW6 and PW7 cannot be discarded as a whole, although there may be some discrepancy which does not go to the root of the case. He submits that the deceased died due to injury sustained in the incident and it is clearly stated by the eye witnesses that it was the applicant, who had dealt the knife blow on the belly of the deceased. He had placed reliance on the written objection filed by him in connection with the instant application. He had also relied on the order dated 08.09.2026 passed in I.A. (Crl.) No. 710/2026 in which the bail of the accused person was rejected. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsels and also have Page No.# 4/6 gone through the records. 7. It is seen that PW1, who is stated to be eye witness had stated in her evidence that she was present at the place of occurrence and that the applicant had hit the deceased with dagger. However, in her cross-examination, she stated that she did not state before the police that she was present in the place of occurrence. This statement shows the contradiction as provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and the said contradiction is proved by her statement that she had not stated before the police. As such, her subsequent statement that the applicant had attacked the deceased with dagger will not be considered to be a version of eye witness. Further the other alleged eye witness i.e. PW6 had stated before the Court that he was tilling the land and that the applicant came to his land and prevented him and others from tilling and that the applicant left for his home and after 10 minutes, the applicant along with others came with weapons and entered into his land and inflicted knife blow on the deceased. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that it is not a fact that he did not state before the police that the petitioner had given a knife blow on the belly of the deceased. The contradiction is as such placed before the said witness and when the Investigating Officer was asked about the same, the Investigating Officer stated that PW6 stated before him that when he was tilling his land, he heard hue and cry and that he approached to the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer also stated that PW6 did not state that the applicant and others went to the field by carrying weapons. 8. In view of the said statements, the contradiction is proved and the seeing of the incident of thrusting the blow on the belly of the deceased becomes doubtful. With regard to the other eye witness i.e. PW7, contradiction is again seen. He stated before the Trial Court that while he was tilling the land, he saw Page No.# 5/6 the applicant assaulting with dagger on the belly of the deceased. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that it was not a fact that he did not state before the police that he was not at the place of occurrence and that he went to the place of occurrence only after hearing hue and cry. The said contradiction is placed before the said witness and after confronting the statement before the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer stated that the said witness had stated before him that he approached to the place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry. 9. In view of the same, the version of PW7 also becomes doubtful. Therefore it can be said and in case the eye witnesses are not reliable, the recourse would be to look into the circumstances of the case which has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. 10. In Masalti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Reported in AIR (1965) SC 202, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when a criminal Court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving large number of offenders or and large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more reliable witnesses who gives a consistent account of the incidence. 11. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit to suspend the sentence imposed upon the petitioner in connection with said judgment and order dated 04.02.2026 and allow the petitioner to go on bail. As such the petitioner is enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri. 12. The observations made in this order will have no effect in the hearing of the case. Page No.# 6/6 13. I.A. is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant