Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010275982025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) I.A.(Crl.)/1365/2025 SRI BISWA DAS SON OF SRI MANIK DAS RESIDENT OF TENGANI DIGHOLI MAJGAON POLICE STATION- BORPATHAR DISTRICT -GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785602 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM. 2:SMTI NIZORA GOGOI WIFE OF SRI KAMAL GOGOI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAHARKHANA MISING GAON POLICE STATION-BARPATHAR DISTRICT -GOLAGHAT ASSAM. PIN-785602 ------------ Advocate for : MR. T DEURI Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Page No.# 2/5 Date : --26.03.2026 Heard Mr. T. Deuri, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Addl. PP appearing on behalf of State respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. Das, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application u/s 430 BNSS for suspension of sentence and to allow the petitioner to go on bail. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Deuri that the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Golaghat passed judgment & order dated 13.10.2025 in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 72/2021 had passed the impugned Judgment & Order where the present applicant/appellant was convicted u/s 448 IPC and hereby sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 1 year along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation and also sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. 4. Mr. Deuri further submitted that the present applicant is behind the bars since last 164 days i.e. from the date of the judgment. He further submitted that the judgment is passed and the conviction is based on the evidence of the PW-3 i.e. the victim of this case. But, he submitted that the statement of the victim recorded u/s 161/164 Cr.PC and the statement given by her at the time of recording her evidences are not consistent and there are contradictions to that regard. Further he submitted that the PW-9, who is the brother and stated to be eye-witness of the case of the prosecution also contradicts with statement of the victim. He submitted that without going detail into the other merits of the case, it is seen from the evidence of the PW-3/victim that the accused/appellant entered into their house while she was alone. He came inside the house asking Page No.# 3/5 for tamool (betel-nut) and when she requested him to go, he did not listen to her and when she tried to conceal herself, he dragged her forcefully, opened her panty and attempted to touch her vagina. She shouted and then the PW-9, her own brother came to the spot and he gave him a blow with a piece of firewood. But, the PW-9 the only eye-witness in the prosecution case had submitted that when the victim raised alarm he entered into the house, he saw the accused/person grabbing the victim on the wall. He submitted that though he stated to be eye-witness, be he did not describe what the accused was doing at that time when he entered into the room. Thus, he submitted that the evidence of the victim as well as the eye-witness is not corroborating and thus there is every chance of acquittal in the present case. The accused/applicant being the permanent resident of his addressed locality, there is no chance of absconding. But, considering all these aspects of the case, he may be released on bail by suspending the sentence imposed on him. He is ready to give proper surety to the satisfaction of the Court and to abide by any stringent condition imposed on him. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Addl. PP raised vehement objection and submitted that the victim is very much consistent in all her statements recorded u/s 161/164 as well as while her evidence was recorded by the Court. There is nothing to disbelieve the victim who was only 9 years old at the relevant time of incident. He further submitted that PW-9 only came inside the house after hearing hue and cry made by the victim who is his younger sister and saw the accused grabbing her beside the wall. Thus, there is full corroboration of the evidences and in the same time the PW-1 and PW-2 also corroborates the evidence of PW-3 and PW-9. 6. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the sentence can be suspended only in Page No.# 4/5 exceptional circumstances when there is chances of acquittal. But, from the evidence so far recorded by the learned Special Judge and considering over all aspects of the case, it may not be a case for acquittal and hence the prayer for suspension of sentence may not be considered at this stage. 7. Mr. Das, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the statement made by the victim u/s 161/164 and her evidence is corroborating evidence and is consistent in every stages of this case. Thus, there is nothing to disbelieve the victim/PW-3. He further submitted that at the relevant time of incident PW-9 was backside of his house and he came only after hearing hue and cry made by his sister and when he saw the accused inside their house grabbing the victim. Thus, he may not have seen while the accused had opened the panty of his sister but, he saw the accused grabbing her beside the wall. He further submitted it is not also a case that the learned Special Judge had ignored the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and every evidence on record has been appreciated by the learned Special Judge while passing the order. Mr. Das accordingly submitted that this is not at all a fit case to allow the accused to go on bail at this stage by suspending the sentence. 8. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court below. It is seen that the learned Special Judge had discussed all the material evidence-on-record and prima facie there is no material to disbelieve PW-3/the victim and PW-9 the eye-witness to the prosecution and cannot be held that at this stage that there is every probability of acquittal of the present applicant in this case. More so, there is no other special circumstances or there is no other material to show that the learned Trial Court below did not appreciate the evidence-on-record. Rather, from the judgment & order passed Page No.# 5/5 by the learned Special Judge it reveals that every aspects of the case have been considered at the time of passing the order. Accordingly, it is seen that at present there is no case to consider that there is every chance of acquittal at the end of the appeal to consider his application u/s 430 BNSS suspending the sentence imposed on him or to grant him bail at this stage. 9. However, endeavour shall be made to dispose of the appeal at the earliest possible time considering the fact that the applicant is languishing behind the bars for a considerable period. 10. In view of this, the present IA stands rejected and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant