Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/548/2024 of RAMJAN ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. on 20 May 2026
GAHC010106692024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/548/2024 RAMJAN ALI S/O LATE JAYNAL ABEDIN, VILL.- SATRAKANARA SEAT NO. 6, P.S.- BAGHBAR, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE
GAHC010106692024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/548/2024
RAMJAN ALI
S/O LATE JAYNAL ABEDIN, VILL.- SATRAKANARA SEAT NO. 6, P.S.- BAGHBAR, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.
2:SAIFUL ISLAM
S/O NURUL ISLAM
VILL.- MOIDHALI PATHAR
PURABAZAR
P.S. AND DIST.- MORIGAON
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR H A AHMED,MR. MUSTAFA HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
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
21.05.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. The application is for suspension of the sentence to be undergone by the applicant in pursuance to his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act vide judgment dated 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Nagaon, in POCSO Case No.338/2022.
3. The applicant’s counsel submits that the victim has only clarified the word ‘bad act’ in her re-examination where she has stated that the applicant had put his finger inside her private parts. However, the same is not borne out by the evidence of the Doctor and the medical examination, which showed that there was no recent injury on her private parts and no evidence of any sexual intercourse.
4. Section 3 of the POCSO Act clearly provides that insertion of any part of the body by an accused into the private parts of the victim would amount to penetrative sexual assault and if the offence has been acted upon a child below 12 years, the same would amount to aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
5. On a prima facie reading of the evidence of the victim, we do not find any reason to hold that the insertion of a finger into the private parts of the victim would not amount to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Further, as the Paper Book has been provided to the parties and hearing has been fixed on 23.07.2026, we are not inclined to allow the present application at this stage.
6. The application is accordingly dismissed.
7. Any observation or finding made in this order shall not be considered to be the final observation or finding at the time of disposal of the appeal.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant