LAWS(GAU)-2020-8-21

ALOM MIAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On August 12, 2020
Alom Miah Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the applicant. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned APP appearing for the State.

(2.) By this application under Section 389(1) Cr.PC., the applicant is praying for suspension of sentence passed vide judgment dated 19.03.2019 in Sessions Case No. 103(BGN)/2017 by the learned Session Judge, Bongaigaon and seeking enlargement of the applicant on bail during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal. It is seen that as per the sentence pronounced in the aforesaid case, the applicant has been sentenced to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 302 IPC with default sentence.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has extensively referred to the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court. He has also referred to the statement of the applicant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein the applicant has stated that the dacoit had committed murder of his wife. Hence, it is submitted that the applicant did not killed his wife, but the murder was committed by some dacoits. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court had categorically recorded that there was no direct evidence indicates and that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that unless the chain is complete, leading to inference of guilt of the accused, no reliance can be placed on the circumstantial evidence alone in the absence of any other evidence. It is further submitted that it is a well settled principle that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the various circumstances should be able to form a chain pointing to the guilt of the accused and in cases where there is only circumstantial evidence, the Court has to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution and decide whether the evidence proved a particular facts relevant for the purpose of the case and inference of the guilt can be drawn on facts which are highly consistent with the guilt of the accused. He further submits that in the present case in hand, the proved facts are not consistent with the guilt of the accused and, as such, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.