Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010093732026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/549/2026 MOHAR ALI S/O- LATE SURAB ALI VILL- BADULIPARA P.S- NOTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY PP ASSAM 2:MD. NAIB ALI S/O- PALTU MIA VILL- BADULIPARA P.O- RONGPURI P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : ANKUMANI NATH Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Linked Case : Crl.A./193/2026 MOHAR ALI S/O- LATE SURAB ALI VILL- BADULIPARA P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM 2:MD. NAIB ALI S/O- PALTU MIA VILL- BADULIPARA P.O- RONGPURI P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : ANKUMANI NATH, DR ANKIT TODI,MR A NATH,MS. R JUGLI,MS M PARBIN,PRIYANKA DAS,MS. T P THANCHUNG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 31.08.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. A. Nath, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P for the State and Ms. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 430 BNSS for suspending the sentence to be undergone by the applicant, pursuant to the impugned Judgment dated 08/09/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Special (POCSO) Case No.28/2021, arising out of North Lakhimpur Sadar P.S. Case No.352/2021, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 448 IPC. Page No.# 3/3 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that not only has the applicant been in judicial custody for more than a year, but also the evidence of the Doctor does not prove that rape had been committed upon the victim, in view of the fact that the rupture of the hymen could have been due to any other reason, such as falling, cycling etc. He submits that just because the victim’s hymen was ruptured, does not mean that the victim had been raped. 4. Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P, on the other hand, submits that when the testimony of the victim has been corroborated by the medical testimony, there was no reason to have a different finding than that made by the learned Trial Court. 5. Similar is the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. On considering the fact that the Doctor’s evidence is to the effect that the victim’s hymen was ruptured, we are not inclined to allow the present application at this stage. 7. The I.A. is accordingly rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant