Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010062322025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/294/2025 GAUTAM DAS SON OF GOPAL DAS, VILLAGE NARAYANPUR, POLICE STATION TAMULPUR, DISTRICT TAMULPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:NAMITA DAS W/O. JADAV DAS R/O. NARAYANPUR P/S. TAMULPUR DIST. TAMULPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD R ISLAM, MR S M ABDULLAH P,MS F HUSSAIN,MD IMRAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 16-03-2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Ms. F. Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R.R. Page No.# 2/3 Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 430 BNSS for suspension of sentence awarded to the applicant pursuant to the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Baksa, in Special (POCSO) Case No.59/2022, arising out of Tampulpur P.S. Case No.15/2022, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The applicant’s counsel submits that there is discrepancy and inconsistency in the statement made by the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., vis-à-vis, her testimony given before the learned Trial Court. He also submits that the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses does not corroborate the evidence of the victim, inasmuch as, PWs 4 & 7 stated that they had not gone to the house of the applicant, while the victim had stated otherwise. She also submits that there being no evidence of injury in the body of the victim and due to the fact that the hymen of the victim remained intact, there was no proof that the victim has been subjected to rape. 4. Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, submits that there is no major discrepancy or inconsistency in the statement of the victim vis-à-vis her testimony before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that minor inconsistencies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case, just because there is some difference between the stand taken by the prosecution witness Nos.4 and 7 vis-à-vis the victim. He also submits that the evidence of the victim has been corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor, wherein seminal stains were found in the clothes of the victim. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. On considering the submissions of both the counsels, we are of the view that no prima facie case has been made out in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, no good ground for suspension of sentence has been made out by the applicant. We are Page No.# 3/3 of the view that due to the evidence of the Doctor and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the I.A. should not be allowed at this stage. 7. The I.A. is accordingly rejected. 8. Any observations or findings made in this order shall not be construed to be the final findings or observations of this case, at the time of hearing of the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant