Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010046082025 2025:GAU-AS:13202 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/199/2025 SMTI RITUMONI GOGOI W/O LATE PRANAB GOGOI, R/O VILLAGE RUPAHI MOTHADANG GAON PS SIVASAGAR DISTRICT SIVASAGAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:SMTI SANGITA GOGOI RESIDENT OF NAMDANG HILORSAKU PS SIVASAGAR DISTRICT SIVASAGAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BRAHMA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS CURIAE,(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 24.09.2025 Heard Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. Also heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2. Page No.# 2/6 2. This is an Interlocutory Application filed by the applicant/appellant for suspension of sentence dated 22.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasavar, Assam in Special (POCSO) Case No.33/2018. The applicant has also prayed for bail in pursuance to the suspension of sentence as mentioned above. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.08.2018 one Smti. Sangita Gogoi lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Sivasagar Police Station stating inter-alia that on 08.08.2018 in the evening time when all the other members of the house went in search of a domesticated animal, her 14 years old sister was left alone at home and that when she came back home at around 7:00 p.m. she saw Sri Pranab Gogoi (since deceased) and one woman taking away her sister in a scooty. The informant alleged in the ejahar that when she came home and did not find her sister there, she went to the house of said Pranab Gogoi but could not find her sister there. She then asked the wife of Pranab Gogoi i.e. the applicant about her sister who abused her with filthy language. It is as such stated by the informant that the applicant along with others had kidnapped the victim and sold her for some illegal purpose. 3. Mr. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant by relying upon the statement of the PW-1 i.e. the victim, submits that the victim although in her statement before the Trial Court had stated that the applicant had called her to her house and that she along with her husband and one another lady forcefully made the victim drink some liquid after which the victim went unconscious, the said statement was not stated before the police. Mr. Lal has referred to the Page No.# 3/6 cross-examination of the victim wherein she stated that she did not state before the police that on the day of the incident when she went to the house of her friend to bring one school copy, the applicant asked her to come to their house at about 7:00 p.m. and that when she went to the house the applicant along with two others made her drink something from a glass after which she vomited in their house. Mr. Lal has also placed the statement of the police wherein the Investigating Officer had stated that the victim had not stated before him the said facts as stated above. He, as such, submits that since the victim had not named the applicant in her 161 statement before the police, her statement could not be relied upon as far as the complicity of the applicant is concerned. To substantiate his argument Mr. Lal has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Apex Court in Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2024) 3 SCC 164 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if the witness fails to mention in his/her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. about involvement of an accused, his/her subsequent statement before the Court during trial regarding involvement of the said accused cannot be relied upon. As such, the learned counsel submits that the conviction of the applicant was granted without taking into account the said point of law and as such, has prayed for suspension of the sentence and resultant bail with regard to the applicant in the present case. 4. Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that the statement of the victim both before the Trial Court as well as before the Magistrate demonstrates the involvement of the applicant in the said Page No.# 4/6 offence. She stated before the Trial Court that the applicant had called her to her house and made her drink some liquid after that she went unconscious and that she was made to stay in the house of one of the accomplice/co-convict where she was subjected to sexual harassment by other accused persons and as such she submits that the offence under the I.P.C. as well as Immoral Trafficking Act is very much attracted in the instant case and has prayed that no suspension of sentence or subsequent bail may be granted to the applicant. 5. Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2, however, fairly submits that although the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is correct in the facts of the instant case but he submits that the victim was subjected to sexual harassment in the house of one of the accomplice after she was called by the applicant to her house. He has placed the statement of the victim before the Trial Court wherein she stated that when she tried to go to her house she was not allowed and that the applicant and her husband left her and went to their house and that for three days she was subjected to forceful sexual relation by some boys who gave money to the accomplice/co-convict. 6. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record. 7. It is a settled position of law that in cases of sexual offence the statement of the victim before all the authorities assumes importance and on the basis of the same conviction can be granted. The statement of the victim has to be seen Page No.# 5/6 from the beginning i.e. before the police and till her statement before the Trial Court and if the said statement inspires the confidence, conviction can be granted on the basis of the same. In the instant case, it is seen that the victim had stated before the Trial Court that oneday at around 12:00 noon she went to one of her friend’s house and that the house of the applicant was near to her friend’s house and that at around 7:00 p.m. the applicant called her to her house where her husband i.e. the applicant’s husband and the co-convict were present. She also stated before the Trial Court that as she wanted to come out of their house the applicant, her husband and the co-convict made her drink some liquid due to which she vomited in her house and that later she was offered that she would be dropped in her residence but she was instead taken to some other place. The victim further stated in her statement before the Trial Court that later she was made to stay in the house of the co-convict where she was forced to have sexual relationship with other boys. Although the victim stated before the Trial Court that the applicant had called her to her house but in her statement before the police the victim did not tell the said statement inasmuch as that the applicant had called her to her house and made her drink some liquid. In view of the said contradiction/omission it is required that some corroboration may be sought for in respect of the said fact. However, on a prima-facie examination of other witnesses of the instant case corroboration of the said fact is lacking. 8. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, this Court finds it fit that the sentence qua the applicant may be suspended and Page No.# 6/6 subsequent bail may be granted to the applicant pending adjudication of the instant Criminal Appeal. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. The applicant may be released on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant