Gauhati High Court
CRL.A(J)/33/2025 of Sh. Asgat Ali Vs The State of Mizoram and Anr. on 30 June 2026
GAHC030003092025 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030003092025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRL.A(J)/33/2025
Sh. Asgat Ali
S/o Akash Ali
R/o Lakhipur Cachar
Nidanpur PT-II
Goalpara, Assam
VERSUS
The State of Mizoram and Anr.
Aizawl2:Sh. Lalnunzir
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Victor L Ralte (Amicus Curiae)
Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram for R1
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
HON’BLE 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
01.07.2026 (Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J)
Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1.
In course of hearing, it has come to our notice that the principal witness of the case i.e. the victim who deposed as a court witness has not been cross- examined.
Although the deposition sheet reflects that the cross-examination was declined. On a perusal of the order sheet, it is evident that although after his examination-in-chief, the said CW was called on subsequent days but for whatever reason, the said witness did not appear and by order dated 29.07.2024, the next date i.e., 12.08.2024 was fixed for cross-examination of the victim and for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC. However, the next Order dated 12.08.2024 only reflects that the statement of the accused was recorded and there is no mention regarding the presence or absence of the victim/CW and on a subsequent date i.e., 09.09.2024, one defence witness was examined. There is nothing in the order sheet to show that the defence has declined the cross-examination of CW/ victim. Since the impugned judgment is primarily based on the evidence of the victim, there can be no manner of doubt that the denial of opportunity to cross- examine the victim has caused serious prejudice to the accused, thereby vitiating the findings as reflected in the impugned judgment. We have also noticed that the examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is not a comprehensive one, putting to the accused all the material in the evidence as has appeared against him. In view of the above, we are of the view that the case deserves to be remanded back to the learned Trial Court so as to provide an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the CW/victim and also for the Court to put to the accused all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. After completion of the aforesaid exercise, the learned Trial Court shall pass a fresh judgment after hearing the parties. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for carrying out the aforesaid exercise preferably within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the Trial Court Records. The accused shall remain in custody till disposal of the Trial, subject to any order that may be passed by the learned Trial Court. Send back the TCR. The learned Amicus Curiae and as well as the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2 shall be paid their fees as per norms. We also place on record our appreciation for their services. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant