[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Sahil Ali vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 8 December, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010037152023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/272/2023
SAHIL ALI
S/O MD MUKTAR ALI @ ABUL ALI, VILL.- BETAMAHAL, WARD NO. 4, P.S.-
BOKAJAN, PIN- 782480, P.O.- BOKAJAN, DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG (ASSAM).
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY P.P., ASSAM.
2:USHA SHAHANI
W/O RANJIT SHAHANI
R/O SUKAJAN
PLYBOARD
WARD NO. 7
P.S.- BOKAJAN
P.O.- BOKAJAN
PIN- 782480
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG (ASSAM)
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M RAHMAN,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 08.12.2025
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. M Rahman, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard
Ms. A Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.
The applicant has filed this interlocutory application for suspension of the
sentence under Section 389 CrPC, which is now Section 430 BNSS. The sentence
has been awarded to the applicant as he had been convicted under the POCSO Act
pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned
Special Judge (POCSO), Karbi Anglong, Diphu in POCSO Case No. 02/2021.
Though notice had been issued to the respondent No. 2, the respondent No.
2 has not appeared.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire case had been
made on the basis of an organization which had forced the victim and her mother
to file the present case under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the applicant. He
submits that when the testimonies of the victim and her mother have been made
due to the pressure exerted by the organization, their evidence cannot be said to
be voluntary. As such, the evidence of the victim and her mother cannot be
admissible in evidence. The conviction of the applicant being on the basis of the
testimonies which were not voluntary, the conviction of the applicant should be
suspended, prior to the disposal of the appeal.
Ms. A Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that a
reading of the deposition of the victim and her mother, no doubt shows that their
Page No.# 3/4
testimonies do not appear to be voluntary. However, as the evidence of the victim
is to the effect that she had physical relation with the applicant, the sentence
should not be suspended. Further, the victim was below the age of 16 years at the
time of the incident.
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
We have noticed that the victim did not agree to any medical examination
being done upon her as per the evidence of the Doctor. There is also nothing
stated specifically to the effect that the applicant and the victim had sexual
intercourse, even though she had stated that she had physical relation, which is
ambiguous.
The evidence of the victim and her mother clearly shows that their
statements were not voluntary and that they were made to do the same by an
organization. Their evidence appears to have been recorded against their will and
was not voluntary. As such, it may not be safe to rely on their testimonies. The
applicant in his examination under Section 313 CrPC has also taken the stand that
he did not have physical relation with the victim.
On considering the above facts, we are of the view that the applicant should
be released on bail, till final disposal of the appeal.
Accordingly, the applicant is allowed to go on bail, on furnishing a bail bond
of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only), with one surety of the like amount,
to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Consequently, the sentence awarded to the applicant by the learned Trial
Court shall remain suspended, till final disposal of the appeal.
Page No.# 4/4
With the above observation, this interlocutory application, stands allowed and
disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
