Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 5 February, 2026

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010015472025

undefined

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

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/103/2025

SRI KHIROD PHUKAN AND ANR
S/O. SRI PRIYAM PHUKAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SANTAPUR
P/O. LAHOLIAL
P/S. BIHPURIA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM 784161.

2: BITUL PHUKAN
S/O. SRI DOMBESWAWR PHUKAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SANTAPUR
P/O. LAHOLIAL
P/S. BIHPURIA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM-784161.
VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP
ASSAM

2:XXX
D/O. SRI. MALADHAR DOLEY
VILL. SANTAPUR
P/O. LAHOLIAL
P/S. BIHPURIA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MILAN KUMAR NEOG
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5

Linked Case : Crl.A./41/2025

KHIROD PHUKAN AND ANR
S/O. SRI PRIYAM PHUKAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SANTAPUR, P/O.
LAHOLIAL, P/S. BIHPURIA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM-784161.

2: BITUL PHUKAN
S/O. SRI DOMBESWAWR PHUKAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SANTAPUR
P/O. LAHOLIAL
P/S. BIHPURIA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM-784161

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM.

2:XXX
D/O. SRI. MALADHAR DOLEY
VILL. SANTAPUR
P/O. LAHOLIAL
P/S. BIHPURIA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MILAN KUMAR NEOG, MR. M K NEOG,MR. S K SINGHA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, AMICUS CURIAE, R2

BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER

05/02/2026

Heard Mr. S K Singha, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. A Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. S Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2.

Page No.# 3/5

2. By this application filed under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023, the applicants have prayed for suspension of sentence and the subsequent bail in connection with the judgment and order dated 26.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 97(NL)/2014, by which the applicants were convicted under Sections 376(2)(g)/379 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years with fine and default stipulation under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years with fine and default stipulation under Section 379 of the IPC.

3. Mr. Singha, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the statement of the victim adduced before the learned Trial Court as well as before the Magistrate does not corroborate with the facts narrated in the FIR by the victim herself. He also submits that PW5 and PW6, who were along with the victim also did not corroborate the story narrated by the victim. He stated that PW5, who was along with the victim and her friend, Ranjan Pegu, did not speak of the victim being raped by the applicants. Although, they came to the bridge, where the victim girl was confined, but they did not see that the applicants had raped the victim. Similarly, he relies on the statement of the PW6, who stated that he along with the applicants and the victim was returning home from enjoying Durga Puja and that finding the victim along with her friend, he with the applicants went towards them and that hue and cry was raised in the surrounding and that he left the place out of fear. He also states that he does not know anything further about the incident. The learned counsel for the applicants, as such, submits that PW5 and PW6, having come together with the victim and her friend, should have definitely saw the incident had the incident being true.

4. Regarding the FIR lodged by the victim, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the victim had projected a different story in the said FIR by saying that it was Ranjan Pegu by inducement had taken her away from the bridge and that at that juncture, both the applicants along with Ranjan Pegu had raped her.

5. In view of the said discrepancies, learned counsel for the applicants have prayed for suspension of sentence and the subsequent bail.

Page No.# 4/5

6. Ms. A Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, however, submits that the statements of the victim before the learned Trial Court as well as before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. are similar corroborating each other to the effect that while she along with Ranjan Pegu went to visit Durga Puja along with one of her cousin, the applicants along with a boy appeared before them, dragged them towards the dam on the river, tied there with a bamboo post and demanded money and when she was allowed to bring money and she reached the bridge, the applicants again caught hold of her and dragged her to the place of occurrence and sent Ranjan Pegu instead for bringing money. She further stated that when Ranjan Pegu left her, the applicants raped her. She also stated that after sometime, her mother and other family members reached the place of occurrence and when her mother called her, the applicants fled away from the scene.

7. Ms. A Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has also placed the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, she had stated the same facts to the effect that 3 boys appeared under the bridge, who initially asked for money and when they sent Ranjan Pegu for money, they raped her under the bridge.

8. In view of the said statements, Ms. A Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that no suspension of sentence or subsequent bail may be granted to the applicants.

9. Mr. S Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the victim submits that there is enough corroboration by the victim in her statement before the learned Trial Court as well as before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in such a case, the allegation stands proved, inasmuch as, the Apex Court has time and again states that in cases of sexual offences, the statement of the victim before the authorities matters and if the same are consistent then the case is proved.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

11. It is noticed that although PW5 and PW6 had not stated about seeing the incident, but PW5 had stated that after they reached the place of occurrence, the applicants asked him as to why he went there and out of fear, he went back to call people, leaving the girl in the Page No.# 5/5

company of the applicants and thereafter, he did not know what happened to the girl. As such, since PW5 left the scene, it cannot be said that he did not see the occurrence, even when he was with the victim. Similarly, PW6 had also stated that when he along with the applicants went towards them, i.e., the victim and Ranjan Pegu, there was a hue and cry raised in the surrounding and he left the place out of fear. As such, those witnesses also did not see the subsequent event.

12. Further, the Doctor had supported the case of the prosecution by finding, inter-alia, redness and swelling in the vulva and laceration on the lateral vulva. She also found hymen torn and had opined that there is definite sign of penetration into the vagina and there is injury in her private part.

13. In view of the said corroborative materials, this Court does not deem it fit to suspend the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 97(NL)/2014 or enlarge the applicants on bail at this stage.

14. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands dismissed and disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant