Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010280802025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/66/2026 in Crl.A./20/2026 SRI TAPAN PAYENG S/O SRI NARESH PAYENG R/O MITE BORCAMP P.S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY PP ASSAM 2:MISS UDESHNA PEGU D/O DUNDIRAM PEGU VILL. NAHAR DETAK P.S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR J PAYENG Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 01-10-2026 Heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. S. N. Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 430(2) of the BNSS, 2023 for stay/suspension of sentence and to release the accused applicant/appellant on bail during the pendency of the connected appeal. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Payeng, learned counsel that vide the judgment and order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 117/2016, the appellant was convicted under Section 366/376(1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for Section 376(1) IPC and also sentenced to undergo another R. I. for 5 years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation for Section 366 IPC. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, the applicant/appellant had already preferred an appeal, which is pending before this Court. Page No.# 3/6 5. Mr. Payeng, learned counsel submitted that the entire case is based on the evidence of the PW-1/prosecutrix and the on the basis of her statement only, the order of conviction was passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. He further submitted that from the evidence of PW-1 it reveals that it is the victim, who meet the accused and asked him to send the documents to another place and in that process, she also accompanied him and the whole day, she was with the accused appellant. From the facts and circumstances, as described by the PW-1, it also reveals that she was a consenting party and also had love relation with the accused appellant. It is alleged that she was dragged for half furlong and even after the incident, she did not raise any hue and cry, nor reported the matter to anyone and rather, she came along with the accused appellant and without informing anything to her sisters, she returned home and then only she reported the matter and accordingly, the FIR was lodged. 7. It is her case that she was dragged for half furlong by the accused appellant before the incident of rape, but contradicting her own statement that she did not sustain any injury while she was being dragged by the accused appellant. 8. Mr. Payeng further submitted that after the incident and during the pendency of the Sessions Case, the victim/prosecutrix got married to another person and she is now living happily with her husband and minor child and hence, at present, she is not interested to proceed with the appeal. 9. He further submitted that the appellant was regularly appearing before the learned Sessions Judge at the time of the trial of the case and he being the permanent resident of the addressed locality, there is no chance of his absconding, if the accused appellant is released on bail by suspending the Page No.# 4/6 sentence. 10. Ms. Borah, learned APP raised objection and submitted that there are sufficient materials in the evidence of PW-1 and she can be termed as a starling witness, on the basis of which the order of conviction was passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. She further submitted that the prosecutrix vividly described as to how she was taken by the accused in a deserted forest area, where the accused forcibly committed rape on her by dragging her for half furlong. There is nothing to disbelieve the PW-1 and the defence also could not demolish her evidence, while cross-examining her. 12. Ms. Borah, learned APP further submitted that the medical evidence of the Doctor also supports the case of the prosecution to the extent that he find abrasion and injuries on her private parts as well as on the other parts of the body including the wrist etc., which completely corroborates the statement of the prosecutrix that she was dragged by the accused before committing rape on her. Apart from that the examination of genital organ of the prosecutrix also suggests act of rape as per the opinion of the Doctor. 13. Ms. Borah accordingly raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to release the accused appellant by suspending the sentenced imposed upon him. 14. Mr. Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/informant submitted that as per his instruction, the prosecutrix/PW-1 is not interested to proceed with the appeal at this stage, as after the incident, she got married to another person and presently she is living with her husband and minor child happily and hence, she has no objection, if the accused applicant/appellant is Page No.# 5/6 released on bail by suspending the sentence at this stage. 15. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 16. It is seen that the prosecutrix has brought the allegation of rape against the accused applicant/appellant and she also described as to how she was taken by the accused applicant/appellant in a deserted area and committed rape on her. But there are some material contradictions in the statement made by the victim/PW-1 in regards to injuries sustained by her while the accused dragged her and she gave a statement in her evidence in chief that she did not sustain any injury while she was being dragged by the accused applicant/appellant, which also contradicts the statement of the Doctor, who examined her after lodging of the FIR. Apart from this, considering the materials in the evidence of the PW-1 and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/informant, vis-à-vis the conduct of the applicant/appellant during the trial of the Court, this Court is of the opinion that the accused applicant/appellant can be released on bail at this stage by suspending the sentenced imposed upon him. 17. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 117/2016, convicting the accused applicant/appellant under Section 366/376(1) of IPC and sentencing to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for Section 376(1) IPC and also sentencing to undergo another R. I. for 5 years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation for Section 366 IPC is hereby suspended/stayed and the applicant/appellant, namely, Sri Tapan Payeng is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji. Page No.# 6/6 18. With the above observation and direction, this interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant