Conviction affirmed based on oral testimony and medical evidence; bail denied based on severity of the offense.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

5 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 22.01.2025 and sentenced vide order dated 27.01.2025 in connection with Spl (POCSO) No. 32 of 2022 arising out of Araria Mahila P.S. Case No. 52 of 2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- VI-cum-Special (POCSO) Judge, Araira, for the offence punishable under Sections 341 , 323, 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’), Section 06 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and has been ordered to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 376AB of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the sake of brevity, the sentences awarded under other sections are not mentioned.

4. As per the prosecution case, on 06.10.2022 at about

04:45 A.M., the daughter of the informant was returning from Durgapuja fair then the appellant caught her and took her daughter to his house and committed rape with her.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that merely on the basis of oral statement of the victim, the appellant has been convicted. It is further submitted that there are major contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses.

6. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is in custody since 06.10.2022, this appeal being of the year 2025 is not likely to be heard in near future, hence the appellant deserves privilege of suspension of sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail. It is submitted that the Doctor has noted injury on the private part of the victim who was hardly aged about eleven years at the time of occurrence.

8. Having regard to the evidence of the prosecutrix who is hardly eleven years old coupled with the evidence of the doctor who has noted injury on the private part of the victim, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant does not deserve suspension of sentence and release on bail. Prayer is refused.

9. The appellant is said to be in incarceration for three years. We are of the opinion that if the appeal is not listed for final hearing within one year from today, the appellant may file an application seeking early hearing of the appeal.

10. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only prima-facie and tentative in nature for purpose of consideration of prayer for suspension of sentence and bail of the appellant which would not cause prejudice to either of the parties.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)