Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/741/2025 of SADEK ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 18 June 2026
GAHC010136392025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/741/2025 in Crl.A./241/2025 with Crl.A./8/2025 SADEK ALI S/O - LT HUTU SHEIKH R/O - VILL - TULSIBARI P.S. - RANGIA, DIST - KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN - 781376 VERSUS THE
GAHC010136392025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/741/2025
in Crl.A./241/2025
with Crl.A./8/2025
SADEK ALI
S/O - LT HUTU SHEIKH
R/O - VILL - TULSIBARI
P.S. - RANGIA, DIST - KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN - 781376
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM
2:ASMINA BEGUM
D/O - MD. MUSLIM ALI
W/O - MD SAFIKUL ISLAM
R/O - VILL - TULSIBARI
P.O. - TULSIBARI
P.S. - RANGIA
ASSAM , PIN - 78137
Advocate for the Petitioner : , MS F INTAZ,MR. M A SHEIKH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR N J DAS, AMICUS CURIAE R2
Linked Case : Crl.A./8/2025
SAHARBANU BEGUM AND ANR
W/O. AKBAR AL
2: SAFIQUL ISLAM
S/O. SADEK ALI.
BOTH ARE R/O. VILL. TULSIBARI
P/S. RANGIA
Page No.# 2/4
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781376
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP ASSAM.
2:ASMINA BEGUM
D/O. MD. MUSLIM ALI
W/O. MD. SAFIKUL ISLAM
R/O. VILL. TULSIBARI
P/O. TULSIBARI
P/S. RANGIA
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781376.
------------
Advocate for : MR. M A SHEIKH (P-1
2)
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/741/2025
SADEK ALI
S/O - LT HUTU SHEIKH
R/O - VILL - TULSIBARI
P.S. - RANGIA
ASSAM PIN - 781376
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
2:ASMINA BEGUM
D/O - MD. MUSLIM ALI
W/O - MD SAFIKUL ISLAM
R/O - VILL - TULSIBARI
P.O. - TULSIBARI P.S. - RANGIA
DIST - KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN - 781376
------------
Advocate for :
Page No.# 3/4
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
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
Date : 19.06.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. PP, Assam for the State as well as Mr. N.J. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2.
2. This is an application under Section 430 B.N.S.S. for suspension of the impugned conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant, pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Rangia, in Sessions Case No.11/2023, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 13 years with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 1 month.
3. The applicant's counsel submits that the applicant had been convicted on the basis of a doctored video made by PW-2, with whom the victim had eloped. He submits that the appellant is the father-in-law of the victim and in the absence of any forensic examination report of the video, showing that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim, the conviction and sentence on the appellant by the learned Trial Court was not sustainable. He accordingly submits that till the appeal is disposed of, the conviction and sentence of the applicant/appellant should be suspended and he should be released on bail.
4. Ms. B. Bhuyan and Mr. N. J. Das, learned counsels for the respondents submit that the video taken by the victim clearly shows the appellant (father-in-law) raping the victim. They submit that even in the absence of the video, the testimony of the prosecutrix is enough to convict the appellant for rape, keeping in view the various decisions of the Supreme Court, which says that a victim of a sexual assault is akin to an injured witness.
5. Keeping in view the fact that this Court is to see whether a prima facie case for suspension of the sentence is made out by the applicant, we are of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for suspension of the sentence imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court at this stage.
6. Consequently, the I.A. is rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant