Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010165792024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1113/2024 MOYDAN ALI S/O LATE ABDUL KADDUS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIPATHAR, PS KALGACHIA, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:ATOWAR RAHMAN S/O LATE ABDUL KADDUS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIPATHAR PS KALGACHIA DIST BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M H AHMED, MR. O ULLAH,I AMIN,MS. N SULTANA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 23.09.2026 Heard Mr. M. H. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/3 2. By his application filed under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023, the applicant has prayed for suspension of sentence, imposed upon him by judgment and order dated 20.07.2024, in Session's Case No. 182 of 2023 passed by the Session Judge Barpeta, by which the applicant was convicted under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 8 years. The petitioner has also prayed for allowing him to go on bail after suspending the sentence. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, there is contradiction in the statement of the projected eye witness i.e., PW No. 5 to the effect that although he had stated that he had seen the applicant giving knife blows on the victim but at the same stretch he stated that he saw the knife in the hands of PW 1, i.e. Atowar Rahman. He further submits that PW5 cannot be believed since his statement was contradicted and proved by the statement of the Investigating Officer. He also submits that the circumstances narrated by the Trial Court does not make a complete chain and the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, the learned APP for the State submits that, the Trial Court had taken into account the circumstances that the accused, i.e., the petitioner was seen in the house of the deceased, who was the wife of the petitioner and who was residing in the house of PW No. 1. The other circumstance that was considered was that the knife was recovered at the instance of the petitioner, through which the deceased was killed and the same leads to the only conclusion that petitioner has killed his wife. The other circumstance that was considered is that, out of frustration and to take revenge of leaving him and his children, the petitioner had killed his wife. Page No.# 3/3 5. I have considered the submissions and I have gone through the records of the case. It is seen that, in the instant case the only eyewitness is PW 5 but his statements cannot be believed in view of the fact that he had not stated that he had seen the applicant dealing knife blows on his wife before the police and that for the first time he had stated before the court. The said contradiction was put to him during his cross-examination and he denied of not stating the same before the police. Thereafter, the said contradiction which was placed before PW 5, was placed before the Investigating Officer, who had proved the contradiction. As such PW 5, cannot be believed. Accordingly, the court is left with the circumstances appearing in the case and the circumstances recorded by the Trial Court in the prima facie opinion of this court do not constitute a complete chain. 6. As such, this Court deems it fit, to suspend the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by judgment and order dated 20.07.2024, by the Session Judge, Barpeta, in Session Case No. 182 of 2023, during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal. Resultantly, the applicant is allowed to go on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Barpeta. 7. The I.A. is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant