Gauhati High Court
Bharat Pamegam vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 28 January, 2026
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010264012022
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/98/2023
BHARAT PAMEGAM
S/O SRI TENU PAMEGAM, RESIDENT OF BORGURI GAON, PS GARAMUR,
DIST MAJULI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
2:SHRI DHIREN POGAG
S/O PADMOY POGAG
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORGUN
PS GORAMUR
DIST MAJULI ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R CHETRI, MR N MILI,MS C BURAGOHAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. R. Chetri, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant; Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no.
Page No.# 2/4 1, State of Assam; and Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the opposite party- respondent no. 2.
2. The instant application under Section 389, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against the applicant-appellant and for his release on bail.
3. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying criminal appeal, Crl. App. no. 41/2023 assailing a Judgment dated 28.11.2022 and an Order on Sentence dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Majuli ['the Special Court', for short] in Special Case no. 105[JM]/2020. In the trial of Special Case no. 105[JM]/2020, the applicant-appellant faced charges under Sections 376/493/506, Indian Penal Code [IPC] read with Section 4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012. During the trial, the prosecution side examined nine prosecution witnesses and exhibited six documents as prosecution exhibits.
4. After trial, the Special Court has convicted the applicant-appellant for the offences under Sections 376/506, IPC and also, under Section 4, POCSO Act. After hearing the applicant-appellant on the point of sentence under Section 235[2], CrPC and in view of the provision contained in Section 42, POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced under Section 4, POCSO Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another three months. For the offence under Section 506, IPC, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences Page No.# 3/4 are ordered to run concurrently. The period of three months and fourteen days already undergone till then by the applicant-appellant in custody has been directed to be set-off under Section 428, CrPC.
5. The ground urged by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant are that some vital witness are not examined during the trial and no DNA profiling was made during the investigation.
6. The victim was examined as P.W.2. The Special Court had found the testimony of the victim to be consistent with her previous statements recorded under Section 164, CrPC [Ext.-P 3] and under Section 161, CrPC. The Birth Certificate in original which issued by the Registrar of Birth & Death, Rangachahi, Majuli, was exhibited as Material Ext.-1. As per the Birth Certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 13.04.2004. As per the prosecution case, the applicant-appellant had induced the victim that he was in love with her and he would marry her and on that pretext, he had committed penetrative sexual assault. The FIR was lodged on 08.11.2020 after the victim belatedly disclosed, purportedly under fear due to threat of the applicant-appellant, about commission of the offence upon her on 14.10.2020. The reason for lodging the FIR with delay was found satisfactory by the Special Court. When the victim was examined medically at the Civil Hospital, Garamur, it was found that the victim was pregnant of about three months. Subsequently, the victim gave birth to a girl child. The child was subsequently, handed over to Child Help-Line for upbringing. The testimony of the victim received corroboration from the testimony of her father, who was examined as P.W.1. The applicant-appellant was a neighbour of the victim. The Special Court had found that the Doctor Page No.# 4/4 [P.W.8] who examined the victim on 09.11.2020, reported about positive report of HCG/pregnancy.
7. It is not the case of the applicant-appellant that he had asked for DNA profiling either during the course of investigation or during the course of the trial and as such, the point urged above does not deserve a consideration. The victim had been impregnated and thereafter, she was compelled to give birth to a child when she herself was a child under Section 2[d], POCSO Act.
8. Considering the serious nature of the offences and the manner in which the same was found to have been committed upon the victim child and the parameters within an application under Section 389, CrPC are to be considered, the case for suspension of execution of sentence of the applicant-appellant at this stage is found to be bereft of merits. Consequently, the application is dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant