Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010041982026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/217/2026 MD. SAFIKUL ISLAM @ MD. SAFIQUL ISLAM S/O MD. JAHUR ALI R/O VILL- KHETESWAR P.S- KHARUPETIA DIST.-DARRANG ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM 2:MALMINA BEGUM @ MALMINA KHATUN D/O MADAN ALI R/O VILL- KHETESWAR P.S- KHARUPETIA DIST.-DARRANG ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR M AHMED Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 23.06.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. A. Sarma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no.2 2. The applicant has prayed for suspension of the sentence awarded in relation to the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Darrang, Mangaldai, in Special (POCSO) Case No.31/2020, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act read with Section 376/417 IPC. 3. The applicant's counsel submits that the Prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident. Further, the Birth Certificate of the victim shows the date of birth of the victim to be 15.02.2004, which had been registered on 19.03.2004 and the same had been issued only on 15.05.2007. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the evidence of PW-2, i.e. the Doctor, the radiological examination of the victim done by way of an X-ray showed that her approximate age was 16 to 17 years. He accordingly submits that when there is no proof that the victim was a minor, the applicant could not have been convicted under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Page No.# 3/3 Act. 5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that not only the applicant is the perpetrator of the crime against the victim child, but a child has also been born to the victim due to the sexual offence committed by the applicant. In this respect, he also relied upon the Doctor's report, which is to the effect that at the time of examination of the victim, she was 27 weeks 3 days pregnant. 6. On considering the grounds taken for suspending the sentence, we find that the applicant has been convicted and sentenced not only under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, but also under Section 376 read with Section 417 IPC. Accordingly, we do not find any grounds to allow this application at this stage. 7. The application is accordingly rejected. 8. Any observations and findings made in this order shall not be construed to be the final findings and observations made by us during final hearing of the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant