Abdul Hamid vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 7144 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Abdul Hamid vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 9 September, 2025

Author: M. Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010244412024




                                                                           undefined

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

                      Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1151/2024 in Crl.A./392/2024


             ABDUL HAMID
             S/O. LATE SABED ALI
             VILL. SALMARA P/S. KAMPUR
             DIST. NAGAON ASSAM.

             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
             REP. BY THE PP ASSAM.

             2:ANUWARA BEGUM
             W/O. ABUL HUSSAIN
             VILL. SALMARA P/O. SALMARA
              P/S. KAMPUR DIST. NAGAON
             ASSAM PIN-782425.
              ------------
             Advocate for : MS S S ZIA
             Advocate for : PP
             ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

                                   BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

                                          ORDER

Date : 09.09.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Ms. S. S. Zia, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

Page No.# 2/3

2. This is an application under Section 430 of the BNSS, for suspending the sentence, pursuant to the judgment and order dated 30.09.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagaon, in Special Case No. 54(N)/2021, by which the applicant had been convicted under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, the applicant was sentenced under Section 6 of the POCSO Act in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.

3. The main ground of challenge to the impugned judgment by the learned counsel for the applicant is that a DNA profiling/test had been conducted on the victim, who, as a result of the sexual assault, had given birth to a child.

4. The counsel for the applicant submits that the DNA test showed that the applicant was not the father of the child that had been born to the victim. She accordingly submits that the applicant being 83 years of age, he should be released on bail, after suspending the sentence imposed upon the applicant.

5. The counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim in her statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. had stated that she had been raped in her own house where her parents were living. However, in her evidence given before the learned Trial Court, the victim has stated that she had been raped in the house of her grandfather, after she was taken to the house of her grandfather to do household chores.

6. Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the applicant is the grandfather of the victim and the victim has squarely laid the blame of being sexually assaulted on the applicant. She accordingly Page No.# 3/3

submits that the application should be rejected.

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

8. On perusal of the trial Court's record, we find that there is a DNA test report dated 05.04.2022, wherein blood samples of the victim (DNA 3907/2022), baby (DNA 3908/2022) and the applicant (DNA 3909/2022) has been taken. The DNA test report states that Ext. No. 3, DNA 3908/2022 does not match with the DNA profile of DNA 3909/2022. The issue is with regard to the name of the child and the said issue requires some more consideration.

9. On perusing the trial Court's records, we find that the victim in her statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated that she had been raped in her grandfather's house, which was in line with the testimony given before the learned Trial Court. Though the applicant is apparently around 83 years of age, we are of the view that the bail should not be granted at this stage. However, the matter will be disposed of at the earliest. Accordingly, list the appeal on 22.09.2025 for hearing.

10. Consequently, the IA is rejected at this stage.

                                   JUDGE                        JUDGE



Comparing Assistant