Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010032122025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/286/2025 FIROJ LAGACHU S/O. LT. BITUPAN LAGACHU VIILL.- BADOTI LAGACHU GAON P/S. BADATIGHAT DIST. LAKHIMPUR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM 2:UMARAM KUTUM S/O. LT. KARKI KUTUM VILL.- LAGACHU GAON P/S. BADATIGHAT DIST. LAKHIMPUR ------------ Advocate for : MR J PAYENG Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM in Crl.A./98/2025 FIRUJ LAGACHU S/O. LT. BITUPAN LAGACHU, R/O. BADOTI LAGACHU GAON, P/S. BADATIGHAT GAON, P/S. BADATIGHAT, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:UMARAM KUTUM S/O. LT. KARKI KUTUM R/O. LAGACHU GAON P/S. BODOTI GHAT DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J PAYENG, MS. SUSMITA DOLEY,MS A PAYENG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 10/12/2025 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and APP, Assam, appearing for the State. 2. The applicant has prayed for suspension of the sentence awarded to the applicant in pursuant to the conviction of the applicant under section 6 of the POCSO Act, vide the impugned judgement dated 24/12/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 72/2021. 3. The applicant’s counsel submits that the evidence shows that the victim and the appellant were apparently having consensual physical relationship and that the age of the victim was approximately 15-16 years as per the Radiological report, at the time of examination of the victim by the Medical Doctor. As such, the applicant should be given the benefit of “+/- “ 2 years, for coming to the correct age of the victim, Page No.# 3/3 which would show that the victim was around 18 years of age at the time of the incident. He submits that in view of the above reasons where there was consensual sexual relation, the applicant should not be kept in jail pending final disposal of the appeal. 4. On the other hand, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, submits that the victim was around 14 years of age as per her Birth Certificate. She further submits that an Ossification Test is different from a Radiological examination. As such, when the child was around 14 years of age, there was no question of the child being a major. 5. On considering the submissions of the counsels for the parties and on perusing the records, we are of the view that the applicant’s prayer for suspension of sentence cannot be allowed at this stage. 6. Accordingly the application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant