Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010229982025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1237/2025 in Crl.A./421/2025 GANESH MAHATO S/O - LT NATHANI MAHATO R/O - IBRAHIMPUR BEGUSARAI LAKHANPATTI P.S. - LAKHNA DIST - BEGUSARAI BIHAR PRESENTLY RESIDING AT AMULAPATTY WARD NO. 09 SIVASAGAR TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST - SIVASAGAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:MITLESH CHOUDHURY S/O - LT RAJENDRA CHOUDHURY R/O - AMGURI GHAT P.S. P.O. AND DIST - SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN - 785680 ------------ Advocate for : MRS R BEGUM Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 08.05.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Begum, Page No.# 2/3 learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Addl. PP, Assam for the State. 2. This application has been filed under Section 430(2) BNSS for suspension of the sentence to be undergone by the applicant, pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2025, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge -cum- Special Judge (P), Sivsagar in Special (POCSO) Case No. 11/2024, convicting the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main ground for suspension of the sentence is that there is no proof that the age of the victim is below 18 years. He submits that though there was a transfer certificate issued to the victim, the basis for the date of birth provided in the transfer certificate has not been brought out in the evidence. As such, the transfer certificate could not have been the basis for proving the age of the victim, which, as per the knowledge of the applicant, was beyond 18 years. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the original transfer certificate of the victim had been produced in the Trial Court and the same had clearly proved that the victim was below 18 years at the time of the alleged incident. He also submits that as the hearing of the main appeal has been fixed on 23.06.2026, all the issues that are required to be decided in the appeal, would be heard on the said day. He accordingly submits that the application should be rejected. 6. On hearing the counsels for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the main appeal has been listed for final hearing on 23.06.2026, we are of the Page No.# 3/3 view that the application for suspension of sentence should be rejected at this stage. 7. The IA is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant