SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 11378

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
BAPON KAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR – Respondent
Crl.A. 405 / 2019



##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010229292019

2026:GAU-AS:6799

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.A./405/2019

BAPON KAR

S/O LATE SWAPAN KAR, R/O ROHAGAON, P.S.-ROHA, DIST-NAGAON,

ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

2:ATUL BARUAH

S/O LATE PANI RAM BARUAH

R/O VILL-GARMARI

P.S.-ROHA

DIST-NAGAON

ASSAM

PIN-78210

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N MAHAJAN

Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. A BEGUM, ADDL. PP

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

Date on which judgment is reserved : 14.05.2026

##PAGE2##

Page No.# 2/9

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.05.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A

operative part of the judgment ?

Whether the full judgment has been : Yes

pronounced?

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J)

Heard Mr. N Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs.

A Begum, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 09.08.0219, passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Nogaon, in Sessions Case No. 64(N)/2014,

convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default

further imprisonment for 6 months.

3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the deceased wife was married

to the appellant Bapon Kar, about 3 years prior to the alleged occurrence which

took place on 15.04.2014, and out of the said wedlock, a female child was born

to them, who was aged about 6 months at the time of occurrence. Although

initially there was a good relation between the two i.e. husband and wife, the

##PAGE3##

Page No.# 3/9

husband/appellant subsequently started demanding dowry and used to torture

the deceased for the said purpose despite which the victim remained with the

appellant.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant, during the

night-time, killed the deceased by strangulating her in their bedroom.

5. An FIR was lodged on 15.04.2014 before the O.C, Roha Police Station,

and upon registration of Roha P.S Case No. 75/2014 under Section 304(B)/34

IPC, investigation commenced, culminating in a charge-sheet, whereafter, the

learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon framed charges against the present appellant

as well as his mother, co-accused Dipa Kar under Section 302/304 IPC. In

course of trial, prosecution adduced evidence through 7 witnesses (PWs), at

the end of which the accused persons were examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C., and the defence did not adduce any evidence in the case.

6. Upon consideration of the evidence and hearing the rival arguments, the

learned trial court came to the view that Section 304(B) IPC, relating to dowry

death, is not attracted in the present case, but found the present appellant

guilty under Section 302 IPC, while the co-accused, Dipa Kar, was acquitted of

the charge under Sections 304 (B)/302/34 IPC.

##PAGE4##

Page No.# 4/9

7. A perusal of the impugned judgment would go to show that the learned

trial court had, amongst other material, relied upon the evidence of PW-6, who,

in his cross-examination stated that on the relevant night the accused and the

deceased were sleeping in their room. The learned trial court came to the

conclusion that there is no evidence that any other person had access to the

same room on the relevant night, which negated the possibility of any person

other than the present appellant having committed the murder of the

deceased.

8. The learned trial court also relied on the evidence of PW-1, who stated

that he found the accused in his house. It may be mentioned here that PW-6 is

one of the brothers of the accused who also stated that the accused appellant,

Bapon Kar and his wife, deceased Simpi Baruah, used to live separately in a

separate room in the same courtyard. Further, from the evidence of PW-3 and

PW-6, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the dead body was

found lying on the bed in the ro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top