Gauhati High Court
Crl.A./140/2026 of JOYDUL HOQUE @ JAHIDUL Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 22 June 2026
GAHC010007132026 2026:GAU-AS:9043- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./140/2026 JOYDUL HOQUE @ JAHIDUL S/O MD. HAKIM ALI, VILL- BHAKUAMARI CHAR, P.S.- SUALKUCHI RIVER P.S., DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND
GAHC010007132026
2026:GAU-AS:9043-
DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./140/2026
JOYDUL HOQUE @ JAHIDUL
S/O MD. HAKIM ALI, VILL- BHAKUAMARI CHAR, P.S.- SUALKUCHI RIVER
P.S., DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:SEBARAN NESSA
W/O BASIRUDDIN
VILL- BHAKUAMARI CHAR
P.S.- SUALKUCHI RIVER P.S.
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 78112
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK, MR. A ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR S ISLAM(R2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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
23.06.2026 (Mr. R. Mazumdar, J) Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kausik, learned APP for the State, and Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel and Amicus Curiae.
2. This is an appeal under Section 415(2) of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing and/or setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order Dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup at Amingaon in connection with Sessions Special (POCSO) Case No. 68/2022 (Arising out of Sualkuchi River PS Case No. 01/2022 under section 448/376(3)/313/109, IPC read with section 4 of POCSO Act) convicted under section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 whereby the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a term of 20 (twenty) years for committing offence punishable under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another two (2) months.
3. Upon consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the records available, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant herein was entitled to the benefit of doubt since the prosecution had failed to prove the commission of offences under Section 448/376(3)/313/109, IPC read with section 4 of POCSO Act) convicted under section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4. Accordingly, the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup at Amingaon in connection with Sessions Special (POCSO) Case No. 68/2022 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges, giving him the benefit of doubt.
5. The detailed order giving reasons for the acquittal will follow.
6. The petitioner be released from custody forthwith, if not required to be in custody for any other case.
7. Registry shall communicate this order to the jail authorities and the Trial Court during the course of the day.
8. Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant