JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 9846 of 2024: 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant under Section 430(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence in connection with judgement of conviction dated 24.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge-I-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Koderma in Special POCSO Case No.05 of 2022 arising out of Telaiya P.S. Case No. 40 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for maximum 22 years along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the testimony of the victim, which is the sole basis of conviction, is not being corroborated by the testimony of the doctor. 3. It has further been contended that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is therefore, a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended during pendency of the instant appeal. 5. While on the other hand, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the lower court record and the other material exhibits. 7. This Court has found from the exhibits, particularly, Ext.-P11 which is the date of birth of the victim based upon that the age of the victim has been determined as 08 years and 08 months. 8. This Court has also gone through the testimony of the victim who has been examined as P.W.-7 who has fully supported the prosecution version. 9. It is evident that the entire story has been narrated that how she has been subjected to sexual assault attracting the ingredient of Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 10. This Court has also gone through the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has fully supported the prosecution version. The victim remained consistent even in the cross-examination. 11. 10. This Court has also gone through the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has fully supported the prosecution version. The victim remained consistent even in the cross-examination. 11. We have considered the testimony of P.W.-8 who is the doctor wherefrom it is evident that lacerated injury seen on private part on labia minora. It is further evident that the inflammatory infiltrate has also been seen said to be moderate. 12. We have also considered the testimonies of P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 who have seen the appellant carrying the victim along with him. 13. It further appears from the testimony of the investigating officer who has been examined as P.W.-12 that the sample of the semen as also the undergarments of the victim has been sent for its chemical examination and the report has been marked as Ext.-P13 and Ext.-P14 which has been found to substantiate the prosecution case. 14. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact having been taken into consideration by the learned trial court while convicting the appellant, is of the view that the appellant has not been able to make out a case for suspension of sentence, as such, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal. 15. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 9846 of 2024 stands dismissed. 16. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying pending before this Court for its consideration.