GAHC010056912024

2026:GAU-AS:5992 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1574/2024 ASIRAN NESSA BIBI W/O- LT. ISMAIL HUSSAIN, VILL- KAZAIKATA PART-VI, P.O. KAZAIKATA P.S. BILASIPARA, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARYTO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

3:THE ASSAM STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY GHY-01

4:THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301

5:THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY DHUBRI ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M HUSSAIN, MR M KHAN,MR A.K. MOLLAH,MR. R I MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MRS. R S CHOWDHURY (R-3),SC, ASLSA,MR. R S CHOUDHURY,SC, FINANCE BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

30.04.2026 Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, appearing for the respondent No. 2 & Ms. R. S. Chowdhury, learned Standing Counsel, ASLSA, appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 03.05.2019 and 19.11.2020 passed by the Secretary, DLSA, Dhubri, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for victim compensation has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner, namely Ismail Hussain, was allegedly murdered on 15.08.2010. Accordingly, Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 410/2010 was registered. Upon completion of investigation, trial commenced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara, Dhubri in Sessions Case No. 129/2013. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial court acquitted the accused persons. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

“25. Evidence of witnesses is that they did not witness the incident and they only heard about the murder of Ismail Hussain by some unknown miscreants. Witnesses not whisper presence of accused person at place of occurrence. None of the witness even seizure witness stated that seized goods were recovered either from the, possession, house of the accused at the instance of the accused person. Seizure witnesses though admits signature on the seizure list but did not state that seized good are recovered from the place of occurrence or from the possession of accused person. It is not the evidence of prosecution that seized weapons and other good recovered at the instance of accused persons as led by and shown by accused. It is not the evidence of prosecution that any of the witnesses seen accused persons at the place of occurrence before or after the commission of the offence. None of the witnesses stated that they have seen deceased with the accused person. Last seen theory is also not coming from the evidence of P.W.'s. It is also not the evidence of P.W's that IO the case found any of the accused persons at place of occurrence. Seizure list Exbt. 2,3,4,5 clearly pointed though seized goods were found at place of occurrence but same were not recovered in presence of accused and or as shown and led by accused person. There is no piece of evidence available against the accused persons to connect their link with the murder of Ismail Hussain.

26. No doubt deceased Ismail Hussain was murdered and he succumbed to his injury. But available piece of evidence does not connect any link in between accused persons and death of Ismail Hussain. There is no chain of circumstances appearing against the accused persons to book them under prosecution charges. Prosecution evidence miserably failed to bring home the prosecution charges aga