Bombay High Court
Navnath Dnyanu Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 September, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/4 15-IA-1557-22-IN-APEAL-470-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1557 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.470 OF 2022
Navnath Dnyanu Jadhav .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Ms. Misbaah Solkar, Advocate for Applicant.
• Mr. Yogesh Y. Dabke, APP for the State/Respondent No.1
• Ms. Saima Ansari (Appointed Advocate) for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2022
P.C. :
1. This is application for bail during pendency and final
disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.470 of 2022. The Applicant
is convicted u/s 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and u/s 366 and 377 of the Indian
Penal Code.
Digitally
signed by
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR
V NESARIKAR Date:
2022.09.17
2. Learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Greater
11:01:50
+0530
Nesarikar
2/4 15-IA-1557-22-IN-APEAL-470-22.odt
Bombay, vide impugned judgment and order dated 11/04/2022
passed in POCSO Special Case No.501 of 2018 convicted and
sentenced the Applicant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10
years besides imposition of fine as a major punishment for
commission of these offences. The Appeal is already admitted.
3. Heard Ms. Misbaah Solkar, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Ms. Saima Ansari, learned counsel for Respondent
No.2 and Mr. Yogesh Y. Dabke, learned APP for the State.
4. The victim was examined as P.W.2. The incident had
taken place on 07/08/2018. The date of birth of the victim is
04/02/2003. Learned counsel submitted that the victim's
statement is improbable. There is delay in lodging the FIR. The
prosecution witness P.W.3 is not reliable witness. Though he
claims to be an eyewitness, he had not taken immediate steps to
save the P.W.2. The medical evidence also does not support the
prosecution case. The Applicant is in custody for more than 4
years.
3/4 15-IA-1557-22-IN-APEAL-470-22.odt
5. Learned APP opposed this application. He submitted
that the evidence of the victim himself does not suffer from
infirmity. Based on this evidence, the conviction is properly
recorded. At this stage by appreciating the evidence, the bail
cannot be granted to the Applicant.
6. I have considered these submissions. I have perused
the deposition as referred by the learned counsel for the
Applicant. P.W.2 was the victim himself. As mentioned earlier his
date of birth was 04/02/2003. The incident had taken place on
07/08/2018. The victim was taken to a dilapidated room by the
Applicant. The victim was knowing the Applicant. The victim has
described the incident. According to the Doctor, there was
fissure and it was possible due to anal intercourse. In the cross-
examination he has also opined that the fissure may not be
possible only due to anal intercourse and it can be because of
many reasons.
4/4 15-IA-1557-22-IN-APEAL-470-22.odt
7. As far as P.W.3 is concerned, when he saw the incident
he immediately went to the house of the victim and informed
the aunt of the victim. At this stage his conduct cannot be said to
be very unnatural. He sought help from the aunt of the victim.
The other argument was that the Applicant is falsely implicated
because of the quarrel between the victim's aunt's family and the
accused. However, that suggestion is denied by the victim
himself.
8. All these are matters of appreciation of evidence at the
stage of deciding the Appeal. At this stage, considering the
above evidence against the Applicant, the application is rejected.
However, since the Applicant is in custody for more than 4 years,
hearing of the Appeal is expedited. The application is disposed
of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
