Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/1286/2025 of MANORANJAN PATHAK Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 19 August 2026
GAHC010215052025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1286/2025 MANORANJAN PATHAK S/O LATE DHARANI PATHAK R/O - JAPORIGUG P.S. - KRISHNA NAGAR DIST. - KAMRUP M ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP
GAHC010215052025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1286/2025
MANORANJAN PATHAK
S/O LATE DHARANI PATHAK
R/O - JAPORIGUG
P.S. - KRISHNA NAGAR
DIST. - KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PP
ASSAM.
2:JHARNA CHAKRABORTY
RESCUE COORDINATOR
CHILD FRIENDLY
GUWAHATI
W/O - SUJIT CHAKRABORTY
R/O - PANBAZAR GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
P.O. AND P.S. - PANBAZAR
DIST - KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : RAJ BAHADUR CHETRI
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
in Crl.A./435/2025
MANORANJAN PATHAK
S/O - LT DHARANI PATHAK
R/O - JAPORIGOG
P.S. KRSHNA NAGAR
DIST - KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP ASSAM
2:JHARNA CHAKRABORTY
RESCUE COORDINATOR
CHILD FRIENDLY
GUWAHATI
W/O - SUJIT CHAKRABORTY
R/O - PANBAZAR GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
P.O. AND P.S. - PANBAZAR
DIST - KAMRUP(M)
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : RAJ BAHADUR CHETRI, U BHARADWAJ,MR N MILI,MR. T
DEURI,MR N MILI,MR. R CHETRI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS H BETALA(R2),MR. M AHMED(R2),MR. R K A
SINGHA(R2),MR. S. K. CHAKMA(R2),MR A.K. HAJONG(R2),MR I CHAKMA(R2),MS N
DEKA(R2),MS. D GHOSH(R2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 20/08/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned APP, Assam and Mr. Navin Kanti Tongchangya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel 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, pursuant to his conviction under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, vide the impugned judgment dated 18/06/2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, POCSO, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in Sessions (Special) Case No. 16/2023, arising out of Hatigaon, P.S. Case No. 529/2022. The applicant/appellant was thereafter sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his life with a fine of Rs. 1(One) lakh, in default, imprisonment for two years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has taken us through the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses and Defence Witnesses. He submits that even though the appellant is the stepfather of the victim, the victim would have first informed her own mother (PW-5) with regard to her being raped by her stepfather. However, the same was not done, which creates a doubt as to the authenticity of the allegation made by the victim against the applicant/appellant. He also submits that the evidence of the defence witnesses, especially the evidence of DW-2, who is the grandmother of the victim, on the victim's mother's side, also does not indicate that the applicant could have raped the victim.
4. The learned APP and the Counsel for the respondent no. 2, on the other hand, submit that the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement made by the victim corroborates the testimony of the victim made during trial. Further, the Doctor's evidence is to the effect that there were multiple tears in the hymen of the victim. They accordingly submit that the above does not show that a prima facie case for bail and suspension of the sentence in favour of the applicant, has been made out.
5. On considering the testimony and the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement made by the victim, along with the medical evidence regarding tears in the hymen, we are not inclined to allow the present application. Further, paper book having been provided to all the parties and the matter having been fixed for final hearing on 05-11-2026, we are of the view that suspension of sentence should not be granted at this stage. The application is accordingly rejected at this stage.
6. IA is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant