Bombay High Court
Deepak Narayan Rane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/6 11-IA-1031-22-IN-APEAL-313-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1031 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.313 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1032 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.313 OF 2022
Deepak Narayan Rane .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Devendra Patil, Advocate for Applicant.
• Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.
• Ms. Shivani Kunder, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 03rd AUGUST, 2022
P.C. :
1. Leave to amend is granted to remove the name of the
Digitally
Respondent No.2 from the Appeal memo and memo of both
signed by
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE V
these applications. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
V NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
2022.08.06
14:54:50
+0530
Nesarikar
2/6 11-IA-1031-22-IN-APEAL-313-22.odt
2. Interim Application No.1032 of 2022 is for suspension
of sentence pending hearing and final disposal of the Appeal.
There is also another prayer for quashing and setting aside the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
Obviously this other prayer cannot be granted in Interim
Application. That would be a subject matter of the Criminal
Appeal.
3. Interim Application No.1031 of 2022 is for release of
Applicant on bail during pendency of the Criminal Appeal
No.313 of 2022. Since the effect of both these application is
similar, these applications are decided by this common order.
The Appeal is already admitted.
4. The prosecution case is that on 07/12/2015 the
Applicant committed rape on the victim, who was about 9 years
of age. At the conclusion of the trial, the Applicant was
convicted as under;
3/6 11-IA-1031-22-IN-APEAL-313-22.odt
(1) He was convicted for the commission of
offence punishable u/s 376(2)(i) of the Indian
Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment 20 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.
(2) He was convicted for offence
punishable u/s 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code and
was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of
payment to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one
month.
(3) He was acquitted from the charges of
commission of offence punishable u/s 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
5. The Applicant was also charged for commission of
offence u/s 4 of the POCSO Act. But since, the major
4/6 11-IA-1031-22-IN-APEAL-313-22.odt
punishment was u/s 376(2)(i) of the IPC, no separate conviction
or sentence was recorded under the POCSO Act.
6. Heard Mr. Devendra Patil, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Ms. Shivani Kunder, Advocate for Respondent No.2
and Smt. M. R. Tidke, learned APP for the State.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that there
was delay in lodging the FIR. The date of incident was
25/11/2015. The FIR was lodged on 07/12/2015. He submitted
that this incident was told to the landlord of the Applicant. But
the landlord is not examined. Neither any witness from the
locality was examined. The Applicant is falsely implicated.
8. Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the
Respondent No.2 relied on the evidence of the victim, her sister
and uncle. It is submitted that their evidence sufficiently
establishes the prosecution case.
5/6 11-IA-1031-22-IN-APEAL-313-22.odt
9. P.W.2 is the victim herself. She has deposed that her
date of birth is 17/10/2006. She has stated that she was
studying in 4th standard at the relevant time. On 25/11/2015
her uncle had gone to railway station to drop her father and
grandmother. She was in the house with her younger sister. They
were watching T.V. It is was night time. At about 11.00 p.m. the
Applicant who was their neighbour came in their house. He
bolted the door from inside and committed rape on her. She and
her sister shouted. Then he went out of the house. Before going
he threatened them that he would kill his family members if
they disclosed the incident to their uncle. But the victim and her
sister disclosed this incident to P.W.1 i.e. their uncle. After that,
the FIR was lodged.
10. P.W.3 - the younger sister of the victim has fully
supported and corroborated the victim's version. P.W.1 - the
uncle has explained why the FIR was not lodged. He has
deposed that when he came to know about the incident on
27/11/2015, he went to the landlord of the Applicant. The
6/6 11-IA-1031-22-IN-APEAL-313-22.odt
landlord pressurized him not to lodge the report. They were
frightened. After only gathering support from the relatives, the
FIR was lodged.
11. Thus, at this stage, there is sufficient material against
the Applicant. The offence is quite serious and sentence imposed
is 20 years. In this view of the matter, no case for grant of bail
pending Appeal is made out. The application is rejected.
12. Both the Interim Applications are disposed of.
13. The Appeal is expedited because the Applicant is 63
years of age and his wife is a suffering from cancer, as submitted
by learned counsel for the Applicant.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
