Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/440/2026 of JAMILA KHATUN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 18 June 2026
GAHC010039592026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/440/2026 JAMILA KHATUN W/O ALI HUSSAIN VILL- BIHAPARA P.S.- TAMULPUR DIST- TAMULPUR ASSAM PIN-781367 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------
GAHC010039592026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/440/2026
JAMILA KHATUN
W/O ALI HUSSAIN
VILL- BIHAPARA
P.S.- TAMULPUR
DIST- TAMULPUR
ASSAM
PIN-781367
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. A ROSHID
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
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
19.06.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. B.
Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. This application for suspending the sentence imposed upon the applicant pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa at Mushalpur, in Sessions Case No.69/2018, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC.
3. The case of the Prosecution is that the deceased had, prior to her death, blamed the present applicant (mother-in-law) of being the person who set her on fire. The applicant’s counsel submits that the basis for convicting the applicant is on the alleged statement made by the deceased, which cannot amount to a dying declaration, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He accordingly submits that when the basis for convicting the applicant is not sustainable, the conviction and subsequent sentence cannot be held to be sustainable.
4. On the other hand, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the statement made by the deceased that the applicant had set her on fire proved that there was no infirmity in the conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant. She also submits that as Paper Book has been furnished to the parties and the matter is ready for hearing, the matter can be disposed of at the earliest.
5. On considering the issue raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we are of the view that at this stage it would not be proper to suspend the sentence imposed upon the applicant, inasmuch as, the issue of whether the statement made by the deceased for convicting the applicant is sustainable or not, would require a deeper look into the law and the facts of the case.
6. I.A.(Crl.) is accordingly rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant