I.A.(Crl.)/339/2026 of SAHIDUL RAHMAN @ JAHIDUR RAHMAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. on 7 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 08/09/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J)

1. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Doley, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State and Ms. N. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for the respondent no. 2.

2. This is an application under Section 430 BNSS, for suspending the sentence to be undergone by the applicant/appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 363/376 IPC, vide the impugned judgment dated 07/03/2026, passed in Sessions Special Case no. 110/2024 and Sentence Order dated 09/03/2026, arising out of Bharalumukh P.S. case no. 304/2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum Special Judge, POCSO, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. The applicant/appellant’s counsel submits that the evidence of the victim is to the effect that the victim and the appellant had an intense love affair due to which they had sexual intercourse. He submits that though the victim had taken a stand that she had become pregnant due to the physical relationship with the appellant, the Doctor's evidence nowhere indicated that the victim was pregnant. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Doctor's evidence also did not speak of any recent injury marks on her body or private parts. Further, the prosecution did not establish that the age of the victim was less than 18 years. As such, there was no question of the provisions of the POCSO Act being attracted to the case in hand.

4. The learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that the victim had been made to undergo frequent intercourse on the basis of the promise made by the applicant to the victim that he would marry her. However, it was only after the victim was brought to the house of the applicant that the victim came to know that he was already married. Further, the evidence of the victim showed that the mother of the appellant/applicant had taken the victim to Halakura Hospital, where she was made to undergo an abortion, which was done under objection of the victim. They also submit that the evidence of the victim being a minor had been proven by the Birth Certificate showing the date of birth of the victim to be 14/02/2007, while the victim had eloped with the appellant on 10/09/2023. They accordingly submit that the application should be rejected, as having sex with a minor by making a false promise of marriage, attracted the provisions of the POCSO Act.

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

6. The evidence of the victim is to be effect that she was in love with the applicant and though she had initially rejected the applicant's advances to have sex, she relented when the applicant promised to marry her. The victim’s further evidence is that though she had become pregnant, she was made to undergo an abortion by the applicant's mother.

7. The learned Trial Court has, in the impugned judgment, held that the age of the victim as a minor, was proved by the victim's birth certificate. With regard to the doctor's evidence, it can be seen that the absence of pregnancy does not mean that there was no abortion done, as the doctor had stated in his evidence that “External cervical os-closed transverse-slit present over the external os means an abortus came out through the slit which is normally circular. The victim was not found pregnant at the time of her examination and her urine pregnancy test was also negative but the indicated finding was indicative of an abortion beyond a period of 15 to 20 days.”

8. We also find that the applicant was already married, which fact the applicant had apparently hidden from the victim, who was apparently a minor.

9. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to allow the present application at this stage. The same is accordingly rejected.

10. Any observation or finding made in this order, shall not be constituted to be the final observation and finding of this Court at the time of hearing the appeal.

11. The IA is disposed of.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant