Gauhati High Court
Crl.A./3/2026 of ABDUL MATLIB Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 18 May 2026
GAHC010266572025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./3/2026 ABDUL MATLIB SON OF LT. ABDUL RAHMAN,RESIDENT OF VILL CHANGMAJI MIKIR PATHAR, P.O. MODERTOLI P.S. DOBOKA, DISTRICT HOJAI, ASSAM. PIN-782440 VERSUS THE STATE
GAHC010266572025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./3/2026
ABDUL MATLIB
SON OF LT. ABDUL RAHMAN,RESIDENT OF VILL CHANGMAJI MIKIR
PATHAR,
P.O. MODERTOLI
P.S. DOBOKA,
DISTRICT HOJAI, ASSAM.
PIN-782440
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. HUSSAIN AHMED TALUKDAR, MS. P S LASKAR,MR. H A
TALUKDAR,MR. L R MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
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
19.05.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the appellant Abdul Matlib.
Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The appellant has put to challenge the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, in Sessions Case No.80(N)/2010, by which the appellant Abdul Matlib has been convicted under Section 302 IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, prior to the appellant being convicted by the learned Trial Court. Further, despite the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, no sentence has been awarded by the learned Trial Court to the appellant. He accordingly submits that the matter may be remanded back for enabling the learned Trial Court to examine the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C and dispose of the case against the appellant thereafter.
4. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that sub-paragraph of paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2019 has recorded that the appellant Abdul Matlib had absconded after recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and a Warrant of Arrest was pending against him. She however submits that Section 313 Cr.P.C statement of the appellant, which is in the record, does not bear the signature of Abdul Matlib. She also submits that though the appellant Abdul Matlib was convicted under Section 302 IPC, no sentence could be awarded to him, due to the appellant absconding.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. On a perusal of the learned Trial Court’s records, we find that the appellant Abdul Matlib had not been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in view of the fact that he was absconding. As such, the finding of the learned Trial Court in sub-paragraph of paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2019 does not appear to be correct, insofar as, the learned Trial Court has held that the appellant had been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The above being said, the appellant has also not been given any sentence by the learned Trial Court, even though he has been convicted by the learned Trial Court, despite the fact that vide order dated 18.03.2019 a case against the appellant Abdul Matlib was filed, after examination of the Executing Officer, pursuant to issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest.
7. As it was incumbent for the learned Trial Court to have examined the appellant Abdul Matlib under Section 313 Cr.P.C, prior to coming to a finding of guilt and convicting him under Section 302 IPC, we find that the conviction of the appellant Abdul Matlib is not sustainable.
8. In view of the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the trial of the appellant Abdul Matlib, who is reportedly in judicial custody in Nagaon District Jail should be re-started from the stage of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2019, so far it relates to the appellant Abdul Matlib is hereby set aside. Needless to say, the appellant Abdul Matlib shall continue to remain in judicial custody till further orders are issued.
9. Send back the TCR.
10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant