Naren Deka vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 9708 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Naren Deka vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 18 December, 2025

Author: M. Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                       Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010002982024




                                                                undefined

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

                               Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/315/2024
                                     in Crl.A./96/2024


              NAREN DEKA
              S/O- LATE RANSHITA DEKA
              R/O- GOBRADOL
              P.S.- TIHU DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM.

               VERSUS

              THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
              REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

              2:SANU MANDAL
              S/O- LATE SURESH MANDAL
               R/O- VILLAGE NATUN BASTI
               DATALPARA
               P.S.- FATASIL AMBARI
              GUWAHATI- 781025
               DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
              ASSAM.
               ------------
              Advocate for : MR F HAQUE
              Advocate for : PP
              ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

                                BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
                                 ORDER

Date : 18.12.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Ms. A. Page No.# 2/4

Begum, learned Addl. PP, Assam as well as Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under Section 389 Cr.PC, which is equivalent to Section 430 BNSS, seeking suspension of the sentence passed in pursuance to the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, vide judgment dated 30.09.2023, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Sessions Special Case No. 11/2020.

3. The applicant's counsel submits that the applicant has been in jail for more than 3 years and as he is 76 years of age as on date, he should be released on bail. He also submits that the entire prosecution case is based solely on the evidence of PW-3 and not on the evidence of the prosecutix. As such, the conviction, not having been made on the basis of the evidence of the prosecutix, the applicant should be released on bail, as rape has not been proved.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bherulal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8388/2024), by which the Supreme Court had granted bail to the convict, pending disposal of the appeal petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He submits that similarly bail should be provided in the present case.

5. Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. PP and Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submit that the incident of the applicant raping the 3 years old girl had been witnessed by PW-3 and the evidence of the Page No.# 3/4

Medical Officer, showing that there was a recent tear in the hymen of the victim, besides there being bruises on her private parts, corroborates the evidence of PW-3 that the applicant had raped the young victim. They accordingly submit that the application should be dismissed.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. A perusal of the evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court shows that the victim was not able to adduce any evidence and keeping in view her young age of 3 years, we are not surprised with the said fact. However, PW-3 has witnessed the applicant raping the victim. The doctor's evidence shows that there was a recent tear in the hymen of the victim girl, besides there being bruises on her private parts. The victim had been medically examined the day after the incident.

8. The stand taken by the applicant's counsel with regard to the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8388/2024, in our view, cannot be applied to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, the case before the Supreme Court was with regard to conviction and sentence pertaining to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 etc., where the accused persons therein had been sentenced to undergo 4 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

9. In the present case, the minimum sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is 20 years imprisonment. As such, we are of the view that the said judgment relied upon by the applicant's counsel is not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, as there is an eye witness to the crime, which is corroborated Page No.# 4/4

by the medical evidence, we are no inclined to suspend the sentence at this stage.

10. The application is accordingly rejected.

11. However, any observation or finding made by us in this order will not be considered to be the final order/observation at the time of deciding the appeal.

                                 JUDGE                                   JUDGE




Comparing Assistant