Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010141782025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/748/2025 in Crl.A./249/2025 KAMAL NATH S/O. LT. RAMESWAR NATH R/O. VILL.- GHARAMAKHA P/S. MAJBAT DIST. UDALGURI ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:DHARMESWAR BORO S/O. LT. RAMAKANTA BORO R/O. VILL.- LAKRA BARNAGAR P/S. GORESWAR DIST. UDALGURI ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR S H SIKDAR Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 12.02.2026 Heard Mr. S. H. Sikdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. Arunabh Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Page No.# 2/4 2. By this application, the applicant has prayed for suspension of sentence and subsequent bail in connection with the judgment and order dated 16.06.2025, by which the applicant was convicted under Sections 376/511 of the IPC as well as Section 10 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine and default stipulation and was also sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the age of the victim is not proved during the trial and that she had also not given her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC. He further submits that there are other witnesses, who had not corroborated the case of the victim and the medical report too. He further states that the relative, who came to the place of occurrence at the first instance after the occurrence, was not examined by the prosecution. He also submits that for the total period of incarceration imposed upon the applicant is 5 years and that 1 year the applicant has already inside the jail and seeing the length of detention, the applicant may be released on bail and the sentenced may be suspended. 4. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the statement of the victim and her friend, who was accompanying the victim at the time of the occurrence, corroborates each other and that the petitioner, who was working at the time of occurrence as a Constable and the victim, who at her tender age of 10 years, was sexually assaulted in the early morning at around 5.30 a.m. He as such prays that this is not a case for suspension of sentence and subsequent bail. Page No.# 3/4 5. Mr. Arunabh Phukan, learned counsel for the informant submits that in view of the merits of this case, the prosecution case is well established, both the PW Nos. 3 & 4, the victim and her friend have corroborated each other’s statement, according to the learned counsel, and as such, he also prays that no suspension of sentence and bail may be granted. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the statements given by the victim and her friend, this Court finds that the victim had stated before the learned Trial Court that when she and her friend were riding their bicycle in the morning hours of 26.07.2013, the petitioner stopped her bicycle and started riding her bicycle and carrying her on the back of the bicycle and that when they reached near a culvert, the petitioner made her sit near the scene and asking her some particulars, like name and while talking to her, the victim stated that he started touching her body including her private parts. 7. It is noticed that the victim and the petitioner was not known to each other. However, in her cross-examination, PW3 had stated that she had seen the accused and she knows him. As such, it is not surprising that the victim would go with the accused in the bicycle. Further, PW4 had seen the petitioner touching the private parts of the victim and inserting her fingers into her genital. PW4, getting scared and seeing the incident, went and informed the public, who came and apprehended the petitioner. 8. It will not be out of context to mention herein that in cases under the POCSO Act or in cases of sexual offence, there is hardly any eye witness. But, in the instant case, PW4, who had accompanied PW3 and who is also a minor girl Page No.# 4/4 below 10 years of age at the time of the occurrence, had seen the incident. As such, this Court does not deem it fit to suspend the sentence or enlarge the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the IA is dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant