Bombay High Court
Narayan Ramchandra Agri vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 26 July, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 6 3 ia 1677-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1677 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.573 OF 2022
Narayan Ramchandra Agri ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Bharat Gadhavi i/b. Tejesh Dande and Associates for
Applicant.
Smt. J. S. Lohokare, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 26th JULY 2022.
PC :
1. This is an application for bail and suspension of
sentence pending hearing and fnal disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.573 of 2022.
2. Heard Shri. Bharat Gadhavi, learned Counsel for
the Applicant and Smt. J. S. Lohokare, learned APP for the
State.
3. The applicant was convicted for commission of
offence punishable under sections 5rn)(, 6, 3 and r/w.6 of
Mudaliyar
2 of 6 3 ia 1677-2022
the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act,
2012. He was also convicted for commission of offence
punishable under sections 506 and 376 of Indian Penal
Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for 1 years rFourteen years)( and to pay fne of
Rs.1,00,000/- rRupee One lakh only)(, in default of
payment of fne to suffer Simple Imprisonment for the
period of one year, as a major punishment for commission
of an offence under sections 5rn)( r/w.6 of the POSCO Act.
Out of fne amount, an amount of Rs.75,000/- was
directed to be paid to the victim as a compensation.
. The prosecution case is that the victim was
studying in 10th Standard. Her date of birth was
02.02.2000. The incident had taken place on 20.02.2015.
The applicant was her cousin and was residing in the
neighborhood. On the date of incident, the applicant took
the victim to his house and committed rape on her. He
threatened the victim. Thereafter, a meeting of the
villagers was held on 22.03.2015. Nothing came out of
3 of 6 3 ia 1677-2022
the meeting in favour of the victim and thereafter, the
offence was registered vide C.R. No.8. of 2015 at Dighi
Sagri Police Station. The investigation was carried out
and the applicant faced the trial. During trial, the
prosecution examined PW-1 the mother of the victim, PW-
2 the victim herself and PW-7 Dr.Gautam Keshav Desai,
Medical Ofcer. These are the important eye-witnesses.
In all eight witnesses were examined. During deposition,
the victim and mother stuck to their story. At the
conclusion of the trial, the applicant was convicted.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that
there were no injuries on the private parts of the victim.
The incident is not proved. The victim herself was having
obscene photographs and CD in her possession and the
applicant was falsely implicated as he knew about it. He
has already deposited the fne amount. There were too
many contradictions in the depositions of the victim and
her mother.
6. Learned APP opposed this application on the
of 6 3 ia 1677-2022
ground that the version is consistent and there is no
reason to interfere with the fndings of the Trial Court.
She submitted that the offence is serious.
7. I have considered these submissions and I have
perused the judgment and depositions. Learned Trial
Judge has given cogent reasons and convicted the
applicant.
8.. PW-6 Rajani More, Head Master of the school
where the victim was studying has produced the record
and it is established that her date of birth was
02.02.2000. Therefore, at that time of incident she was
16 years of age. The narrations given by PW-1 and PW-2
are sufciently consistent. The medical evidence
produced on record through PW-7 Dr. Gautam Keshav
Desai, mentioned that there was rupture of hymen. There
were no injuries on private parts of victim. At this stage,
the deposition of victim herself in this background is
important.
9. The paragraph-25 of the impugned judgment
5 of 6 3 ia 1677-2022
mentions the specifc defence taken by the applicant. It
is his case that, in the year 2012 when the victim was
studying in 8.th Standard, he had found obscene
photographs and a CD in her possession. Since this was
disclosed by him, he has been falsely implicated in this
case. It was observed by the learned Trial Judge that the
applicant himself has produced those obscene
photographs, CD and the letter rHamipatra)( written by the
victim before the villagers in the meeting which had taken
place on 22.03.2015. It demonstrates that all these
articles were with the applicant and he had actually used
them. The applicant had found this material in the year
2012. He had kept this material with him for about three
years. Producing such material before the villagers itself
was detrimental to the victim. This circumstance is
incriminating against him.
10. There is sufcient material against the Applicant.
The maximum sentence awarded is 1 years. Therefore, I
am not inclined to release the applicant on bail during the
6 of 6 3 ia 1677-2022
pendency and fnal disposal of the appeal. The
application is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
