Bombay High Court
Santosh Bhau Bangar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 October, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 5 04-ia-3264-22 & 3263-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3264 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3263 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 969 OF 2022
Santosh Bhau Bangar ..Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. R. S. Datar for Appellant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 3rd OCTOBER 2022
PC :
1. These are the applications for suspension of sentence
and releasing the applicant on bail during pendency and final
disposal of this Criminal Appeal No. 969 of 2022.
2. The Applicant was convicted by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Kalyan vide his Judgment and order dated 30/08/2022
passed in Sessions Case No.230 of 2012. The applicant was
convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.376 of IPC
Digitally
and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2022.10.06
10:53:09 Gokhale
+0530
2 of 5 04-ia-3264-22 & 3263-22
Rs.20000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one
year. He was also convicted for commission of offence punishable
U/s.506 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and
to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to
suffer S.I. for three months. The substantive sentences were
directed to run concurrently. Besides these sentences the applicant
was directed to deposit amount of Rs.50000/- towards
compensation for the victim U/s.357(3) of Cr.p.c. The applicant
was in custody during trial from 13/05/2012 to 28/06/2013. For
the rest of the period he was on bail during trial. After conviction
he is taken in custody.
3. The prosecution case depends upon the deposition of the
prosecutrix who is examined as PW-1.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the
most important factor in this case is DNA report which rules out
the possibility that the applicant was the biological father of the
child delivered by the victim. He submitted that, this DNA report
practically destroys the evidence of the prosecution. The applicant
3 of 5 04-ia-3264-22 & 3263-22
was implicated falsely because of political rivalry in the village.
5. Shri. Agarkar, learned APP, on the other hand, submitted
that, in this particular case, DNA report may not be the clinching
evidence to throw light on the factors of the case. He submitted
that the offence is serious.
6. I have considered these submissions and I have perused
the evidence of the prosecutrix. Her date of birth was 27/04/1998.
She has deposed that, she knew the accused and she used to visit
his house when no one was in his house. She was aware that he
was married. It is her case that, on two occasions, he established
forcible physical relations with her; with the result she became
pregnant. When she was 4 months into her pregnancy, her father
came to know about it. She disclosed everything to her father and
then this F.I.R. was lodged. The offence took place between
November 2011 and April 2012.
7. During investigation, DNA report was collected to test
whether the applicant was the biological father. The DNA report
rules out that possibility. While it is true that, DNA report may not
4 of 5 04-ia-3264-22 & 3263-22
be the only factor which would exonerate the applicant as there is
a possibility that, besides the applicant some other person may also
be involved. The prosecutrix has not come up with such a case
and, therefore, there is reasonable doubt about her deposition. All
these factors will have to be considered during final hearing. Shri.
Agarkar is right in submitting that, DNA report may not exonerate
the applicant totally. It is possible that he would have committed
this act, but there could be involvement of some other person who
could be the biological father of the child. Shri. Agarkar's
submission merits consideration. But there is some doubt about
her version as she was trying to protect some other person. The
offence is old. Almost 12 years have passed. The applicant was on
bail during trial and there are some arguable points raised on
behalf of the applicant. Therefore, without making conclusive
comments on the merits of the matter at this stage of consideration
of bail, the applicant can be granted bail; particularly when he was
on bail during trial and there are no allegations that he has
misused that liberty.
8. Hence, the order:
5 of 5 04-ia-3264-22 & 3263-22
ORDER
i) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.969 of 2022, the applicant is directed
to be released on bail on his executing P.R.bond in
the sum of Rs.30000/- with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
ii) It is made clear that, payment of fine and
compensation amount is not stayed.
iii)Both the applications are disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
