Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010107782024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/717/2025 SRI BICHITRA RUHI DAS S/O - LT BIPUL RUHI DAS R/O - BETBARI NO. 2 KONWARGAON PS AND DIST - SIVSAGAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM 2:PURNIMA KARMAKAR W/O - RAJU KARMAKAR R/O - BETBARI NO. 2 KONWARGAON PS AND DIST - SIVSAGAR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. P KATAKI Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM in Crl.A./214/2025 BICHITRA RUHI DAS S/O - LT BIPUL RUHI DAS R/O - BETBARI NO. 2, KONWARGAON PS AND DIST - SIVSAGAR, ASSAM VERSUS Page No.# 2/3 THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP, ASSAM 2:PURNIMA KARMAKAR W/O - RAJU KARMAKAR R/O - BETBARI NO. 2 KONWARGAON PS AND DIST - SIVSAGAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MS. A LALA,MRS R BEGUM,MS S BARPUJARI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 11/12/2025 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, who submits that the sentence awarded to the applicant on being convicted by the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, in case no. Special (POCSO) 37/2022 under section 6 of the POCSO Act, should be suspended. 2. The applicant’s counsel submits that the victim had consented to having a physical relationship with the applicant/appellant, besides the fact that the applicant was not aware that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the evidence of the Doctor, the age of the victim was above 18 years as per Radiological evidence. 3. On the other hand, Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned APP, submits that the evidence of PW-7, who is the Head Master of No. 411 Betbari Balika L.P. School, is to the effect that the date of birth of the victim was 12/06/2008 on the basis of the Original Admission Register of the School showing the date of birth of the victim. He Page No.# 3/3 accordingly submits that when the incident had occurred in the month of May, 2022, the victim would have been less than 14 years of age. He also submits that the entry in the Admission Register of the School was not based on any document 4. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provides the manner in which the age of a child is to be assessed. Section 94 does not encompass the determination of age of a child through radiology, but only through an Ossification Test, if there is no date of birth document issued by the School or the Municipality. 5. In the present case, the only thing which determines the age of the victim is the Admission Register, on the basis of which the date of birth certificate can be issued by the School. However, keeping in view the age of the victim as stated by her in her evidence, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence at this stage. The application is accordingly rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant