Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/883/2025 of BIPUL DAS @ BIPUL CHANDRA DAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. on 21 July 2026
GAHC010173092025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/883/2025 BIPUL DAS @ BIPUL CHANDRA DAS S/O. LT. DEBIRAM DAS R/O. VILL.- DHARAMPUR P/S. PALASHBARI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY
GAHC010173092025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/883/2025
BIPUL DAS @ BIPUL CHANDRA DAS
S/O. LT. DEBIRAM DAS
R/O. VILL.- DHARAMPUR
P/S. PALASHBARI
DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM
2:RATUL KALITA
R/O. VILL.- RANI
P/S. PALASHBARI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781131
------------
Advocate for : MR. N MAHAJAN
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
In Crl.A./316/2025
BIPUL DAS @ BIPUL CHANDRA DAS
S/O. LT. DEBIRAM DAS, R/O. VILL.- DHARAMPUR, P/S. PALASHBARI, DIST.
KAMRUP, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:RATUL KALITA
S/O. SRI KANAK KALITA
R/O. VILL.- RANI
P/S. PALASHBARI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781131
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N MAHAJAN, MR. D BORA,MR. P K DAS,MR. A
CHAUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, J RABHA (R-2),MS A DAS,MR. T DEURI(R-2),J
RABHA,MRS. R S DEURI(R-2),MS A DAS(R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 22/07/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mrs. R. Kalita, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State. Ms. R.S. Deuri, learned counsel is present on behalf of the respondent no. 2.
2. This application under Section 430(2) BNSS has been filed for suspending the sentence to be undergone by the applicant pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 30/06/2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, in Session Case No. 295/2014, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC.
3. The applicant's counsel submits that the wife of the applicant had committed suicide and it was not a case of murder. She submits that due to pressure of the public in attempting the marriage of the applicant with his Mistress, who was a married woman, the wife of the applicant being depressed committed suicide. However, a case of murder has been wrongly made, due to which the applicant has been convicted by the learned Trial Court. She submits that the evidence clearly shows that the victim had committed suicide in the middle of the night and the applicant/appellant and his mother had tried to bring her back to life after getting her down from the beam from which she was hanging and putting her on the bed. She accordingly submits that as the present case is not a case of murder but of suicide, the present application under Section 430 (2) BNSS should be allowed.
4. On the other hand, Ms. A. Begum, learned APP, submits that the evidence of the Doctor clearly proved that the victim had died due to strangulation and not due to suicide by hanging. She accordingly submits that the application should be rejected.
5. We have heard the counsels for the parties.
6. The evidence of PW-13, who is doctor who examined the victim, is to the effect that the neck tissue under injury nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were found to be contused. Further there was also contusion of the soft tissues of the lower part of the neck above the trachea and the hyoid bone showed inward compression fracture with contusion of the surrounding soft tissues and trachea was also found distorted in its anatomical alignment. He opined that the death was due to asphyxia resulting from manual strangulation which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.
7. On considering the fact that there is a prima facie case against the applicant pointing to the death being caused by strangulation, we are not inclined to allow the present application for suspension of the sentence at this stage.
8. As such, the application is rejected.
9. Any observations and finding made in this order shall not be construed to be the final observations and findings of this Court at the time of final hearing of the appeal on merits.
10. IA is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant