Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010138802026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./243/2026 ASHIQUR RAHMAN TALUKDAR S/O LATE SAJJADUR RAHMAN TALUKDAR, VILLAGE- CHANDPUR PART- III, P.O.- CHANDPUR, P.S.- BORKHOLA, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788110 VERSUS SHAMIM AHMED LASKAR @ BABU AND ANR S/O LATE ISMAIL ALI, VILLAGE- CHANDPUR PART-III, P.O.- CHANDPUR, P.S.- BORKHOLA, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788110 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. I U CHOWDHURY,J M SULAIMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 15.07.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. J.M. Sulaiman, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. R.R. Page No.# 2/3 Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears for the State. 2. This Court has asked Mr. J.M. Sulaiman, learned counsel for the appellant, as to why notice should be issued to the respondent no.1, who had been acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 103(1) BNS, vide the judgment dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar, in Sessions Case No.323/2025, arising out of Borkhola P.S. Case No.79/2025. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to give any reason as to why notice should be served in the present appeal. He only states that the present case being a case of acquittal, notice should be served. 3. We have seen the impugned judgment and the only reason for the present appeal to have been filed, could be due to the fact that at the time of recreation of the crime scene by the Police, the respondent no.1 had admitted his guilt. 4. The issue is with regard to the recovery of the dead body of the mother of the informant, which was found packed in a plastic bag in the river Mora- Harang. There was no evidence to show the involvement of the respondent no.1 in the death of the mother of the informant, except that there was a suspicion that the mother of the informant was creating some trouble between the respondent no.1 and his wife, due to which the respondent no.1 had killed the mother of the informant. 5. The learned Trial Court, on considering the fact that the Executive Magistrate, in whose presence the crime scene had been re-created had stated Page No.# 3/3 that he did not ascertain the voluntariness of the admission made by the respondent no.1 admitting his guilt which was done in the presence of the Police, had acquitted the respondent no.1, by holding that the Prosecution had failed to substantiate the fact that the deceased had intervened in the relationship between the respondent no.1 and his wife. The learned Trial Court thus held that there was no proof that the respondent no.1 had voluntarily admitted his guilt. 6. We do not find any reason to issue notice to the respondents on the basis of the above facts, especially when the guilt of respondent no.1 is sought to be proved only on the basis of his alleged admission of guilt before the Police, during recreation of the crime scene. Accordingly, there being no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar, acquitting the respondent no.1 from the charge under Section 103(1) BNS in Sessions Case No.323/2025, the present appeal stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant