Bombay High Court
Pritesh Revansiddha Chaudhari vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
2-IA-1331-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1331 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2021
Pritesh Revansiddha Chaudhari ...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents
....
Mr. G. S. Jadhav i/by Mr. Biju A Aloor, Advocate for the
Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Veerdhawal Kakade, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 26th APRIL, 2022.
PER COURT:
1. The applicant is seeking suspension of sentence and
grant of bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.413 of
2021 preferred by the applicant challenging the judgment of
conviction.
2. The applicant has been convicted by judgment and
order dated 18th February, 2021 for offences punishable under
Sections 376 (2)(i) of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and
Sections 4 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (for short 'POCSO Act'). He has been sentenced so suffer
rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
Digitally signed
by SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
JAMADAR
LIYAKAT Date: Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 6
JAMADAR 2022.04.28
13:15:33
+0530
2-IA-1331-2021.doc
3. The First Information Report (for short 'FIR') is lodged
by the mother of victim on 17 th May, 2016. It is alleged that the
victim was aged about 15 years in the year - 2015. The
organization namely Aakanksha Foundation was conducting classes
for guiding the students from weaker sections. The victim girl was
attending the classes. The applicant was teacher in the class for
career guidance. The accused complained to the family of the
victim girl that the victim is talking to boys and roaming with them.
The accused assured the family of victim that he will keep watch on
her and offered to take her to class and drop her home. Thereafter,
the victim girl used to accompany the accused. On 28 th December,
2015, the victim complained of abdominal pain and hence she was
taken to the doctor. At that time the informant received a call from
the accused. The informant told him not come to pick up the victim
girl and that they are visiting dispensary. The accused also visited
dispensary. The doctor advised the victim to conduct Sonography.
The accused told informant that the Sonography of the victim girl
was conducted four days ago. The first informant questioned the
accused about it. The doctor told the informant that on account of
forcible sexual intercourse there was pain in the abdomen of the
victim. The informant then took the victim in confidence and
inquired with her about the cause of pain. The victim girl then
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 6
2-IA-1331-2021.doc
disclosed that in November- 2015, when the victim was alone in
the house of her grand mother, the accused came there and
sexually assaulted her. Again on 24th December, 2015, the accused
took the victim at his house and committed forcible sexual
intercourse with her. The FIR was registered. The victim was
examined by medical officer. Charge-sheet was filed.
4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is in custody from 20th May, 2016. He would completing
six years imprisonment in the month of May - 2022. The applicant
has been falsely implicated in this case. The evidence of witnesses
is contradictory. The FIR was registered after a period of about five
and half months. The age of the victim girl was not proved. It is
not established that the victim was minor. The alleged incident had
occurred in November- 2015 and December - 2015. The FIR was
registered on 17th May, 2016.
5. Learned APP and learned Advocate for Respondent
No.2 submitted that the victim was minor. She was subjected to
forcible sexual intercourse by the accused. The victim was
attending the classes, where the applicant/accused was a teacher.
The medical evidence supports the prosecution case. The
statement of victim girl was recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of
Cr.P.C. which supports the prosecution case.
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 6
2-IA-1331-2021.doc
6. The alleged incident had occurred in November, 2015
and December, 2015. The victim did not inform about the incident
to her parents. On account of abdominal pain, she was taken to
the doctor and thereafter the incidents were disclosed by her.
7. PW-1 is working in the Aakansha Foundation, where
the classes were conducted. He has stated that the accused had
joined the organization as volunteer. He used to give career
guidance to the students. He was also teaching Maths and English
to the students. The victim was attending the classes of accused.
The accused used to teach the victim by visiting her house. The
foundation has not received any complaint from any other girl or
parents against the accused. The accused used to reside 40 to 45
Kms. away from the place where classes were conducted. Two
officials of the foundation used to oppose suggestions of the
accused.
8. PW-2 is the first informant and mother of victim. She
has stated that the victim did not disclose her about the incidents
before going to doctor. She got the knowledge about the incidents
on 28th December, 2015. However, due to exams and threats of the
accused she did not lodge the FIR immediately. It is pertinent to
note that the FIR has been lodged after five and half years after the
incidents were disclosed to her mother. She did not file any
Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 6
2-IA-1331-2021.doc
complaints about threats by the accused.
9. PW-3 is the victim girl. She has stated that she did not
lodge any complaint against the accused. She admitted that, in her
statement before the Magistrate it is not mentioned that she was
subjected to sexual assault when she was alone in the house of her
grand mother by the accused and he had assaulted, threatened her
that he would inform to her family members that her character is
not good. The fact that the accused had committed penetrative
sexual assault and that there was abdominal pain on 28 th
December, 2015 was disclosed by the victim girl to her mother and
thereafter she went to the doctor, is also not reflected in her
statement. The fact that she disclosed to her mother that due to
forcible sexual intercourse there was pain in her abdomen is not
reflected in her statement before the Magistrate. She cannot assign
any reasons for that. PW-6 is the Medical Officer. He gave opinion
that there was evidence of vaginal penetrative sexual intercourse.
He also stated that the victim did not tell him that there was
forcible penetrative sexual intercourse.
10. The applicant is in custody almost for a period of
about 6 years. Considering these circumstances, the sentence of
imprisonment can be suspended.
11. Hence, I pass the following order:
Sajakali Jamadar 5 of 6
2-IA-1331-2021.doc
ORDER
i. Interim Application No. 1331 of 2021 is allowed;
ii. The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed
vide Judgment and order dated 18 th February, 2021 passed by
learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Pune in Special
POCSO Case No. 284 of 2016 is suspended and the applicant
is directed to be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like
amount;
iii. The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- for a period of eight weeks in lieu of
surety.
iv. The applicant shall attend the trial Court once in six
months on first Saturday of the month till the final disposal of
the appeal;
v. In the event, there are two consecutive defaults in
attending the trial Court, the said fact may be brought to the
notice of this Court and in such eventuality, the prosecution
will be at liberty to prefer an application for cancellation of
bail.
vi. The applicant shall not approach the victim or her
family members and shall not cause any harassment to her.
vii. Interim Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sajakali Jamadar 6 of 6
