Ananda Pandurang Nangarepatil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4470 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4470 Bom
Judgement Date : 27 April, 2022

Bombay High Court

Ananda Pandurang Nangarepatil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 April, 2022

Bench: Prakash Deu Naik

                      rpa                           1/4                    13 ia 677 2019.doc


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO.677 OF 2019
                                                   IN
                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1370 OF 2019


                      Ananda Panduranga Nangarepatil             .. Applicant/Appellant
                            Versus
                      State of Maharashtra and Anr.              .. Respondents

                                                       ......
                      Mr.Shivaji K. Farakate, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
                      Mr.S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
                      Ms.Priyanka Chavan, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                     ......
                                                  CORAM :     PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

                                                    DATED :      APRIL 27, 2022.

                      P.C. :

                                  The applicant is convicted for the offence punishable

                      under Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

                      Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act", for short), and, sentenced to suffer

                      imprisonment of 5 years and fne of Rs.1000/-, vide judgment and
RAJESHRI
PRAKASH
AHER                  order dated 25th September, 2019, passed by the Special Judge Under
Digitally signed by
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
AHER


                      POCSO Act, Gr. Mumbai in POCSO Case No.468 of 2016.
Date: 2022.04.29
16:27:37 +0530




                      2           The case of the prosecution is that on 7th September,

                      2016, the victim girl and her brothers were playing infornt of their

                      house. The frst informant saw the victim girl coming out from the
 rpa                            2/4                    13 ia 677 2019.doc


house of accused. Hence, inquiry was made with the victim wherein

she disclosed that the accused had molested her. Immediately

thereafter the FIR was registered.



3            Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the

applicant is in custody for the period of about 2 years and 9 months.

He was on bail during the trial. The facility of bail is not misused.

There are serious discrepancies in the evidence. The complaint was

lodged by mother of the victim girl on 7 th September, 2016. The

statement of victim girl was recorded on 21 st September, 2016. The

investigating offcer has admitted that he did not make any inquiry

with the victim girl for a period of 15 days from the date of the

incident. The statements of the brothers of the victim girl who were

accompanying her were not recorded by the investigating offcer.



4            Learned APP submitted that immediately on the day of

incident, the complainant had approached the police and lodged the

FIR. The victim girl was child aged around 5 years. Merely on the

ground that her statement was recorded after a period of 15 days, her

evidence cannot be disbelieved. Specifc overtact has been attributed

to the applicant. He has molested the child in his house.
 rpa                            3/4                      13 ia 677 2019.doc


5            Learned   advocate      for   respondent   no.2     supported

submission of learned APP. The victim was around 5 years at the time

of incident. The accused took disadvantage of the situation and

committed the alleged act. The evidence of the complainant and the

victim girl supports the prosecution.



6            As stated above, the sentence imposed by the trial Court

is for the period of 5 years. The Appeal preferred by the applicant has

been admitted. It may not reach fnal hearing within short span of

time. The applicant is in custody for a period of 2 years and 9 months.

He was on bail during trial. The statement of victim girl was recorded

after a period of about 15 days from the date of incident. Considering

these circumstances, case for suspension of sentence is made out.



7            Hence, I pass the following order:



                             :: O R D E R ::

(i) Interim Application No.677 of 2019, is allowed;

(ii) The sentence of imprisonment imposed vide judgment and

order dated 25th September, 2019, passed by the Special

Judge Under POCSO Act, Gr. Mumbai in POCSO Case No.468 rpa 4/4 13 ia 677 2019.doc

of 2016, is suspended and the applicant is directed to be

released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of

Rs.20,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;

(iii) Applicant/appellant is permitted to furnish cash bail

security of Rs.20,000/-, for a period of eight weeks, in lieu of

surety;

(v) Applicant shall not approach the victim girl or her family

members and shall not cause any harassment to them;