Bombay High Court
Padmakar Ramrao Ingle vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Khadan ... on 17 December, 2021
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1 33 appeal 549-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.731 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.549 OF 2021
Padmakar Ramrao Ingle ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, thr. P.S.O. P.S. Khadan, Akola, Dist. Akola.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate, with Shri V.R. Deshpande,
Advocate for appellant/applicant.
Shri V.A. Thakre, A.P.P. for non-applicant/State.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATED : 17/12/2021
Heard.
2. This is an application seeking suspension of
execution of the substantive sentence passed in
Session Trial No.30 of 2018 whereby the appellant
(accused) was convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act. The Trial Court
has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years along with fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
354-A of the Indian Penal Code, whilst directed to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine
of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act. Both sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2 33 appeal 549-2021
3. It is the prosecution case that accused and
minor victim were residing in the same apartment. On
the date of occurrence, while accused and victim were
in the lift, he had embraced and kissed her, therefore
the report.
4. The appellant's learned Counsel would submit
that the prosecution was not able to establish alleged
offence with requisite standard of proof. It is argued
that the testimony of victim is not reliable. Though
victim's younger sister was present at the time of
occurrence, however, she was not examined. It is
brought to the notice that as per the prosecution case,
CCTV Footage was available but it was not collected
and tendered in the form of evidence. It is argued that
the incident itself is doubtful since defence witness i.e.
watchman of the lift has stated a different story.
Moreover, it is submitted that as per defence, there
was a dispute on account of bursting crackers and that
may be the reason for false implication. The
applicant's learned Counsel also disputed the age of
minor by showing the discrepancies in the related
evidence on the point of birth date.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor in resistance took me through the evidence,
to submit that the evidence of minor victim is specific
on the occurrence. Her sole testimony is sufficient to
establish the guilt. According to the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, the evidence of watchman is not
3 33 appeal 549-2021
reliable.
6. At this juncture, it is not expected to martial
entire evidence and to express on the merits of appeal.
It is only required to see whether the appellant has
made out some arguable points to impeach the
judgment under challenge.
7. In order to establish the guilt of accused,
prosecution has in all examined six witnesses.
Prosecution case solely depends upon the credibility of
victim girl. Undeniably victim's sister is not examined
nor CCTV Footage is collected. Perusal of the evidence
and impugned judgment, emerges that the appellant
has an arguable case on merits. During the trial, the
appellant was on bail. The trial Court has imposed
fixed term of sentence i.e. of five years. Normally,
unless specific grounds are made out, there could be
suspension of execution of sentence if it is a fixed term
of some years. In case of success in appeal, the
position would become irreversible about the pre-trial
detention. The appellant has deposited entire fine
amount in the Trial Court. The appeal will take
considerable time for its disposal.
8. Having regard to all these facts, execution of
substantive sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.30 of
2018 is suspended till final disposal of appeal.
4 33 appeal 549-2021
9. In the meantime, appellant/applicant shall be
released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
JUDGE
R.S. Sahare
Signed By:RANJANA SAMEER
SAHARE
Signing Date:18.12.2021 18:14
