Page No. 1/4 GAHC010216992024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1040/2024 RITU BORDOLOI S/O KAMESWAR BORDOLOI, R/O KHOLAGAON, SUB-DIST- MAYONG, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782411 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:PURAN BORDOLOI S/O LT. ALAKSING BORDOLOI R/O GAMARIGURI HARIYABORI MORIGAON P.S.-MORIGAON ASSAM-78210 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B KONWAR, MS D DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR B PRASAD, AMICUS CURIAE (R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 26.05.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J.] Heard Ms. D. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant; Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State; and Mr. B. Prasad, learned Amicus Curiae for the opposite party-respondent no. 2. Page No. 2/4 2. The present application under Section 430[1], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 is preferred seeking suspension of execution of the sentenced passed against the applicant-appellant and for his release on bail. 3. The applicant as the appellant, has preferred the accompanying appeal, Criminal Appeal no. 362/2024 under Section 415[2], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 against a Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon [‘the Special Court’, for short] in POSCO Case no. 285/2023. By the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2024, the applicant- appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012 and Section 366, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. For the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, with default stipulation. For the offence under Section 366, IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default stipulation. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 4. In the First Information Report [FIR], lodged on 25.07.2023, by the informant, who is the father of the victim, it was inter-alia alleged that on 24.07.2023, the applicant, who was victim’s volley ball coach, took his fifteen years old daughter, that is, the victim to Guwahati on the pretext that there was a selection of volley ball game and after 24.07.2023, the applicant and the victim did not return back. It was alleged that the applicant was a married man. 5. According to the Investigating Officer [I.O.], it was on 01.08.2023, the applicant surrendered himself at Morigaon Police Station along with the victim. 6. The victim who was examined as P.W.1, testified to the effect that during the period she was in the company of the applicant after 24.07.2023, she was taken first to Guwahati and then, to other places. During the said period, the applicant had physical relationship with Page No. 3/4 him. The previous statement of the victim recorded under Section 164, CrPC is found consistent on the material points with her testimony made before the Court. 7. As per the Birth Certificate exhibited as Ext.-P2 by the informant-father of the victim, the date of birth of the victim is 31.01.2009, meaning thereby, on 24.07.2023, the victim was about fourteen years and six months old. A contention has been advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is discrepancy as regards issuance of the Birth Certificate [Ext.-P2], as evident from the testimony of the P.W.1. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that some records specially X-Ray Plates as regards medical examination of the victim was found missing and the same would her material effect on the case. 8. Having gone through the previous statement and the testimony of the victim before the Court as P.W.1, we prima facie found that her versions are consistent on the material points. Prima facie, the victim is found to be a child as per the definition under Section 2[d] of the POCSO Act, 2012. The inconsistency sought to be highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant, as narrated above, are matters of detailed evaluation and those can be considered at the stage of hearing. 9. In the light of the above discussions and for the reasons mentioned therein, we do not find any merit in this interlocutory application to allow suspension of the execution of sentence passed against the applicant-appellant and for his release on bail, at this stage. Resultantly, the instant interlocutory application stands dismissed. 10. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of considering the prayer for suspension of execution of the sentence and grant of bail to the applicant-appellant and the same shall not be construed as observations made with regard to the merits of the connected appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Page No. 4/4 Comparing Assistant