Order : I.A. No. 12140 of 2024 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(2) of the BNSS for suspension of sentence dated 10.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children at Dhanbad, in connection with Children Case No. 05 of 2022 arising out of Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 122 of 2020 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offences under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it is a case where the appellant has been convicted for the offence said to be committed by him attracting the ingredients of Section 4 of the POCSO Act, but none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution version. 3. It has been contented that the basis of conviction is the testimony of the P.W.-1 having been corroborated by the other witnesses, but if the testimony of the P.W.-1-victim will be taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the ingredient of Section 4 of the POCSO Act is being attracted. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based on the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is a case where the sentence is fit to be suspended. 5. While on the other hand, Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 6. It has been contended by referring to the testimony of P.W.-1, victim that the P.W.-1, victim has fully supported the prosecution version. 7. It has further been contended that even the victim was recovered from the place situated in the District of Jammui, State of Bihar. 8. It has further been contended that there is no explanation on the part of the appellant with respect to the same as to how the victim was found from the said place. 9. It has further been contended that the version of P.W.-1, victim has fully been supported by the doctor. 10. Learned counsel for the State, based on the aforesaid ground, has contended that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence. 11. 9. It has further been contended that the version of P.W.-1, victim has fully been supported by the doctor. 10. Learned counsel for the State, based on the aforesaid ground, has contended that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits available in the lower court record. 12. This Court, for better appreciation of the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to consider the testimony of P.W.-1 and has found therefrom that the P.W-1, victim, has fully supported the prosecution version and she has remained consistent in the cross-examination. 13. It is also available on record that the victim was found from the district Jamui, Bihar as has been said by the witnesses which has been corroborated by the Investigating Officer. The Doctor has also found substance in the prosecution version as it would be evident from the medical report. 14. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts, is of the view that the appellant has not been able to make out a case for suspension of sentence. 15. Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellants is rejected. 16. In view thereof, I.A. No. 12140 of 2024 stands rejected. 17. However, it is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the case on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration. 18. Before parting with the order, it needs to refer herein that we have found from the impugned judgment that the name of victim and her parental has been disclosed in the evidence by the the Learned Trial Court. 19. It further needs to be referred herein that such description either the name of the victim or her parental at any stage of the trial even at the stage of recording the testimony of the witnesses is not permissible and the same has been restrained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nipun Saxena and Another Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in 2019 (2) SCC 703 . 20. The learned Trial Court must be extremely cautious in future on this issue. 21. Let this order be communicated to the concerned Court.