Applicant convicted by Special Judge (POCSO), Khonsa for offences under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 4(2) POCSO Act sought suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C., citing contradictions in prosecution evidence. Court declined to suspend sentence at this stage and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
GAHC040000712024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : IA(Crl)/4/2024
Jitnyem Wangsu Age: 30 Occupation : Address:Wife Wangram Lowang Chasa Vilage PO Kapu PS Khonsa Tirap District AP
VERSUS
The State of AP and Anr Age: 0Occupation : Address:represented by the PP of AP 2:Roksen Bangsia Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Wife of Manjay Bangsia Camp ALC Colony Deomali PO Deomali Tirap District AP
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
For the petitioner/appellant(s) : For the respondent(s) :
Mr. Tabit Tapak, Advocate : Mr. Token Ete, Addl. P.P.
10.09.2024 (Vijoy Bishnoi, CJ)
The matter has come up for consideration of the Interlocutory Application (Crl.) preferred on behalf of the applicant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. with the prayer for suspending the sentence awarded by the trial Court vide
2
judgment and order dated 07.12.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Khonsa Division, Tirap District, Arunachal Pradesh in Khonsa/SC (POCSO) Case No. 04/2024 (corresponding DML P.S. Case No. 02/2023 under Section 376(3) IPC and under Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act).
| Section | Punishment | Remarks (if any) |
|---|---|---|
| 376(3) IPC & Section 4(2) |
20 years rigorous imprisonment with a |
In default in payment of fine, to |
| POCSO Act | file of Rs. 30,000/- | suffer further period of 6 months. |
3
was medically examined. It is also submitted that the complainant (PW1- mother of the victim), in her crossexamination before the trial Court confessed that she had filed the complaint against the appellant/applicant because the accused had failed to pay Rs. 10,000/-, which he had promised to her victim daughter.
4
the victim itself, and it is well settled that conviction can be maintained on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after carefully scrutinizing the Lower Court Record and also taking into consideration the statement of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the statement of the doctor (PW3) as well as the victim girl (PW5), we are not inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant at this stage.
Hence, this Interlocutory Application is dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sentence of conviction under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 4(2) POCSO Act should be suspended pending appeal.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Jitnyem Wangsu
The State of AP
Roksen Bangsia
Vijoy Bishnoi
Kardak Ete
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
