Jamaluddin @ Md Jamaluddin vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3848 Gua

                                                           Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010184702021




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/103/2022

         JAMALUDDIN @ MD JAMALUDDIN
         S/O HAREJ ALI
          RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMOLAPAM
          TEZPUR
          DIST SONITPUR
          ASSAM
          784208


          VERSUS


         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
         REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM


         2:ABDUL KALAM
         S/O LATE NEKBOR ALI


         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMOLAPAM
         TEZPUR
         DIST SONITPUR
         ASSAM
         784208

         ------------
          Advocate for : MR. A K GUPTA
         Advocate for : PP
          ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
                                                                        Page No.# 2/3

                                BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

                                     ORDER

27.09.2022

Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant/accused as well as Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent No.

1. Also perused the written objection filed by the prosecution side.

By this interlocutory application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., the accused/applicant, who is convicted and sentenced vide the impugned Judgment and Order, dated 19.04.2021, passed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 53/2018 by the learned Special Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, has prayed for suspension of sentence and to allow him to go on bail.

The case record, as called for, in the connected Criminal Appeal No. 40/2022, is received.

It is seen that vide the impugned Judgment and Order, dated 19.04.2021, the accused/applicant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1(one) year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for another 1(one) month u/s 342 of the IPC as well as to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for another 1 year u/s 6 of the POCSO Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 24.05.2018 at about 11 a.m., while the informant and his wife were absent at home, the accused/applicant came to their house and confined their minor daughter aged about 7 years in the kitchen and attempted to rape her. However, the victim raised alarm and the accused ran away.

Page No.# 3/3

On scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 1, the victim girl, aged about 8 years along with her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ext.-1 and the evidence of P.W. 2(the father of the victim), P.W. 3 (the mother of the victim), P.W. 4 (related persons), P.W. 5 (the Doctor) and P.W. 6 (the investigating officer of the case), it appears, as a whole, that the victim girl was a minor and there is prima facie material pointing to the guilt of the accused/applicant.

Therefore, in the backdrop of facts and evidence and keeping in consideration the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment and order and without going deep into the merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence passed in the aforesaid judgment and order cannot be suspended pending the connected appeal and the accused/applicant cannot be released on bail till disposal of the appeal.

Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands rejected.

This disposes of the interlocutory application.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant