JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 68 of 2025 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act , Hazaribag in Special POCSO Case No. 19 of 2021 arising out of Charhi P.S. Case No. 61 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the appellant have been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years & a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act . 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the conviction is based only upon the ocular evidence. According to the applicant, the doctor has not found any sign of sexual assault said to attract the core of the POCSO Act . Therefore, it is a fit case for the suspending the sentence while the appeal is lying pending. 3. While, on the other hand, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order, the testimony available in the Lower Court Records and the other material exhibits as available therein. 5. We have considered of testimony of the victim, who has been examined as PW 9, who have fully supported the prosecution version. It is evident from her testimony that she remained consistent in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and in the testimony particularly in the cross-examination also. 6. The question which has been raised is that the doctor has not found any sign of sexual assault will be immaterial in view of the fact that the occurrence took place on 06.07.2020 while the victim was examined on 07.07.2020. 7. In view of the fact that the victim, who happens to the age of 13 years, after being assessed by the doctor with radiological examination, is fully supported the prosecution version. 8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended. 9. 7. In view of the fact that the victim, who happens to the age of 13 years, after being assessed by the doctor with radiological examination, is fully supported the prosecution version. 8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended. 9. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 68 of 2025, is hereby, rejected.