Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010236332023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1013/2023 NAHURUL ISLAM @ NAHURUL ALI SK S/O JOBBAR ALI, R/O AMINKATA, P.S.- GOSSAIGAON, DIST.- KOKRAJHAR (ASSAM). VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. TO BE REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:SARJINA BIBI W/O MD. HABIL KAZI R/O AMINKATA P.S.- GOSSAIGAON DIST.- KOKRAJHAR (ASSAM) Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. A AHMED,MR. S ISLAM,MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 01.04.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. H.R.A Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel appears for the Page No.# 2/3 respondent no.2. 2. This application under Section 389 Cr.P.C is for suspension of the sentence imposed upon the applicant/ appellant, on his conviction under Section 457 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act by the impugned judgment and order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar, in Special Case No.06/2022, arising out of Gossaigaon P.S. Case No.422/2021. 3. The applicant’s counsels submits that the learned Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence of the victim, ignored the vital contradictions made by the victim in her testimony and took her testimony to be the gospel truth. He also submits that there was a delay of 10 days in filing the FIR which has vitiated the Trial. Further, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim had been raped by the appellant. He submits that though the victim was a minor, the prosecution has not been able to prove the case of rape against the appellant, inasmuch as, the foundational facts of the case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. He accordingly prays that the applicant should be released on bail and the sentence imposed upon him should be suspended. 4. Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that evidence of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and inspires the confidence of the Court. Further, there is no enmity between the family of the victim and the appellant, for which the victim could have fabricated a false case against the appellant. He accordingly submits that as there is no prima facie Page No.# 3/3 ground to believe that the impugned judgment and order was not sustainable, the application should be rejected. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. On perusing the evidence of the victim and keeping in view the allegation that a video of the act had been made, we are not inclined to allow the application at this stage. Further, the Paper Book being ready, we are of the view that the entire matter can be disposed of at an early stage. Accordingly, the application is rejected at this stage. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant