Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010038112026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/228/2026 RAJU BARUAH S/O SRI BABUL BARUAH R/O VILL. DAHA (BARAMPUR) P.S. MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:SANGITA DEKA W/O DHRUBA JYOTI DEKA R/O VILL. DAHA P.S. MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784525 ------------ Advocate for : MR. A CHAUDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR in Crl.A./92/2026 RAJU BARUAH S/O SRI BABUL BARUAH, R/O VILL. DAHA (BARAMPUR), P.S. MANGALDAI, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SANGITA DEKA W/O DHRUBA JYOTI DEKA R/O VILL. DAHA P.S. MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN 78452 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 17/06/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and APP, Assam, appearing for the State. No one appears for the respondent no. 2 even though service is complete against the respondent no. 2. 2. The applicant has submitted this application for suspension of the sentence in relation to his conviction under section 4(2) of the POCSO Act in terms of the judgement and order dated 26/12/2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (FTC) cum Special Judge, POCSO, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in Special POCSO Case No. 77/2025, arising out of Mandalgoi PS case No. 90/2025. Page No.# 3/3 3. The applicant’s counsel submits that the age of the victim as per the medical evidence (X-ray) was between 15-17 years of age at the time of the incident. As such, conviction and sentencing could not have been done in terms of section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the School Certificate of the victim has been proved and exhibited before the learned Trial Court as MO-1, which shows the victim to be below 16 years. 4. On considering that the thrust of the applicant’s counsel’s submission is on the age of the victim, which does not contradict the finding of the learned Trial Court that the applicant/appellant had inserted his finger into the private parts of the victim, we are not inclined to allow the present application under section 430(2) BNSS. 5. IA is accordingly rejected. Any finding or observation made in this order, shall not be considered to be the final finding or observation of this Court on the merit of the case, at the time of final hearing of the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant