Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010288092025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/39/2026 SRI PRAKASHIT TOPNO SON OF SRI ARUN TOPNO RESIDENT OF VILL. RANGOLI P.S. MORANHAT DISTRICT- CHARAIDEO ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM. 2:SRI BITUL SANGMA SON OF LATE SAMU SANGMA RESIDENT OF VILL. PACHIM BASTI P.S. BOKOTA NEMUGURI DISTRICT- SIVSAGAR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. D K BAIDYA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : --30.09.2026 Heard Mr. D. K. Baidya, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam as well as Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned amicus curiae, appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. By this application, file under Section 430 of the B.N.S.S. 2023, the applicant has sought for suspension of sentence, imposed upon him by the judgment and order dated 29.08.2025, passed by the Additional Session Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO) , Sivasagar in Special (POCSO) Case No. 14/2024, by which the petitioner was convicted under Section 376(1) of IPC, read in Section 4(1) of POCSO Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 (Ten) years with fine and default stipulation under Section 4(1) of (POCSO) Act. 3. However, the applicant was not sentenced under Section 376(1) of the IPC in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. The applicant has also prayed for releasing him on bail after suspending the sentence. 4. The learner counsel for the petitioner submits mainly two grounds on which the suspension of sentence is sought for, one is that, the age of the victim was not proved as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, 2015. He submits that, although the Birth Certificate is placed and is exhibited but the same was acquired in the year 2020, showing the birth of the victim during 2008, which according to him is in violation of the provision laid down under Registration of Births and Deaths Act. The second ground that he Page No.# 3/4 has placed is that the facts of the case proved that there was a relationship between the applicant and the victim and that, the victim on her own volition went to the applicant's house and had sexual relationship with him. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam, however, submits that, in such cases, consistency of statements of the victim should be seen and the victim had consistently stated before all the authorities about the physical relationship committed by the applicant. He also submits that, the age of the victim was proved by necessary documents and by the deposition of the victim herself as well as her family members. 6. Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned amicus curiae for respondent No. 2, had stated that, the issue with regard to the age of the victim be considered during hearing of the appeal and he fairly submits that, there is a violation of the law in acquiring the Birth Certificate of the victim. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, this court finds as follows. Admittedly, the petitioner and the victim were in a love relationship as could be seen from the statement of the victim herself and that, the victim had herself gone with the applicant and had sexual relationship with him. However, the same would not matter if the victim is minor but proof of the age of the victim, prima facie, does not appear by following Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Protection and Care Act, 2015. 8. It is also seen that, the applicant has been inside the jail for more than a year, some part during investigation and some part after the judgment is Page No.# 4/4 pronounced. It also cannot be lost sight of that the instant criminal appeal is of the year 2026, and some time will necessarily be required for the hearing of the appeal in its entirety. 9. In view of the foregoing reasons this Court finds it appropriate to suspend the sentence imposed upon the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal and to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the judgment and order dated 29.08.2025, by the Additional Session Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar in Special (POCSO) Case No. 14/2024, is suspended and the applicant is allowed to go on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 10. The I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant