Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010255582024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/515/2026 SRI CHESONG ENGHI ALIAS SHRI CHESONG ENGTI SON OF SIKARI ENGHI RESIDENT OF VILL RAM INGHI DIPHU P.S- MANJA DISTRICT- KARBI-ANGLONG ASSAM PIN782461. 2: BIR SING BEY @ BIRSING BEY @ JAKI DINGCHPW S/O. SARSING BEY R/O. VILL. RAM INGHI DIPHU P/S. MANJA-782461 DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSAM. 2:AMOS HANSE S/O. LT. LT. RABERT HANSE R/O. VILL. SAM HASNE GAON P/S. CHOKIHOLA-782480 DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MS. S G BARUAH Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 Linked Case : Crl.A./3/2025 CHESONG ENGHI @ CHESONG ENGTIAND ANR S/O. SIKARI ENGHI R/O. VILL. RAM INGHI DIPHU P/S. MANJA-782460 DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. 2: BIR SING BEY @ BIRSING BEY @ JAKI DINGCHPW S/O. SARSING BEY R/O. VILL. RAM INGHI DIPHU P/S. MANJA-782461 DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP ASSAM. 2:AMOS HANSE S/O. LT. LT. RABERT HANSE R/O. VILL. SAM HASNE GAON P/S. CHOKIHOLA-782480 DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MS. S G BARUAH Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 26.08.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. J. Hatimuria, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P. for the State and Ms. S. Sharma, Page No.# 3/4 learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 430(2) BNSS, for suspending the sentence to be undergone by the applicants, pursuant to their conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act vide Judgment dated 03.10.2024 and Sentence Order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, Diphu in POCSO Case No.52/2020. 3. The applicants’ counsel submits that there is a contradictory stand taken by the victim in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, vis-à-vis her testimony before the learned Trial Court. He also submits that the DNA test result does not link the applicants/appellants to the crime that had allegedly been committed upon the victim. He accordingly submits that the same does not prove that the applicants had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim, inasmuch as, the applicants/appellants’ uncle was not present at the time of the incident as per the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim, while he was alleged to be present by the victim at the time of the incident in her testimony. 4. Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P submits that the victim’s statement is consistent and there is no infirmity with the impugned judgment. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. On considering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, we find that the victim has consistently stated that it was the two applicants/appellants who had committed penetrative sexual assault upon her and not her uncle. As such, when the discrepancy does not go to the root of the matter, the same can be ignored and thus the application for suspension of sentence should not be allowed. Page No.# 4/4 7. On considering the fact that the allegation of having been raped is targeted specifically at the applicants/ appellants in Crl. A. 3/2025 and keeping in view the fact that the final hearing on the main appeal is fixed on 09.09.2026, we are not inclined to allow the application on this count also at this stage. 8. Any observation or finding made in this order shall not be considered to be the final observation/finding made by this Court, at the time of hearing the appeal. 9. The I.A. is accordingly rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant