I.A.(Crl.)/1257/2025 of BASUDEV KHODAL Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 13 May 2026

ORDER

Date : 14/05/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J)

1. Heard Mr. R. Dev, learned counsel for the Applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, Learned APP and Ms. M.K. Brown, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspending the sentence to be undergone by the applicant on being convicted by the Court of the Additional Session Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, under section 6 of the POCSO Act in Special (POCSO) Case No. 65/2019, arising out of Nazira PS case no. 277/2019.

3. The applicants counsel submits that unless the evidence of the victim is corroborated by other evidence, it cannot be said that there was proof that the appellant/applicant had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. Further, the victim had been staying with the applicant for around 6 months prior to the incident. If the applicant had any intention to rape the victim, he could have done so at any time and not waited for 6 months. He accordingly submits that the conviction based on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix was unsustainable. As such, the application should be allowed.

4. The counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that there is nothing to show that the evidence of the victim (PW-1), which is to the effect that the applicant had raped her, is not believable. In fact, the evidence of the victim is truthful. They further submit that the incident occurred one day after the applicant had kicked out the mother of the victim from the house, inasmuch as, the applicant was the stepfather of the victim. They also submit that the evidence of PWs-2 and 4 corroborate the evidence of the victim that she had been raped, as the victim was seen crying after the incident. In fact, PW-1 had gone into the house of PW-2 and informed PW-2 about the incident, soon after the incident.

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

6. On considering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties and the evidence, we are of the view prima facie that there is nothing to show that the applicant is not guilty of the charge framed against him. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to allow the present application. The application is accordingly dismissed. However, the observations and findings made herein above, shall not be considered to be final observation of this Court at the time of disposal of the appeal.

7. IA is accordingly closed.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant