Bombay High Court
Kallu @ Wasim @ Chanayya Sattar ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 14 June, 2023
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
2023:BHC-AS:15880
D.A.Ethape 12-IA-768-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 768 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2023
Kallu @ Wasim @ Chanayya Sattar Khan ...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents
....
Mr. Ganesh K. Gole i/by Mr. Bhavin Jain Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Ashish Satpute Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
....
CORAM : PRAKASH D.NAIK, J.
DATE : 14th JUNE, 2023.
P.C.:-
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
during the pendency of Criminal Appeal preferred by the applicant
challenging the judgment of conviction.
2. The applicant has been convicted for an offence punishable under
Sections 354, 354(B) of Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He has been sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused had removed clothes
of the victim child aged around three years and touched her.
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2023 15:56:31 :::
D.A.Ethape 12-IA-768-2023.doc
4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that, the prosecution
case suffers from serious discrepancies. The applicant was not present in the
house on the date of incident. He was driving tempo and has produced
challan in that regard. Victim was being tutored by the social worker, who
was present in the Court, which is apparent from her evidence. The exact
time of alleged incident has not been spelt out by any witnesses. The
complainant/mother of victim stated in her cross-examination that, she
visited the house of the accused and at that time he was not in the house
which runs counter to her version in the examination-in-chief that the
victim took her to the house of the accused and pointed out him as the
person, who committed the alleged act. The victim or the mother has not
stated as to where the accused had touched the victim girl. The applicant
was on bail during the trial. The sentence is of five years. The applicant is in
custody for a period of six months.
5. Learned APP and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted
that, there is sufficient evidence to convict the appellant. The applicant has
not examined any defence witness. There is no reason to falsely implicate
the applicant. The evidence of mother and victim child attributes specific
role to the applicant having committed alleged offence. The only defence
urged by the applicant is that, there was quarrel between the mother of
victim and the brother of accused, which is not supported by any evidence.
6. The applicant has been acquitted for offences punishable under
2/4
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2023 15:56:31 :::
D.A.Ethape 12-IA-768-2023.doc
Section 366-A of IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The victim
was aged around 8 years at the time of giving evidence. The victim has
stated that, the accused had removed her clothes and touched. The victim
has also stated that, the accused had entered into the house and closed the
door and offered chocolate to her which is apparently an omission. In the
judgment, the trial Court has observed that, the statement of the victim was
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the victim has not stated before
the Magistrate that the accused touched her but it has to be appreciated
that statement recorded by the Magistrate is used for the purpose of
corroboration. From the said observation it appears that, the statement
recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. does not refer to the
fact that the accused had touched victim. PW-1 (mother of victim) in her
cross-examination has stated that, she went to the house of the accused, he
was not there. It is pertinent to note that, prosecution case is based on the
version of the complainant that the victim child had informed her that uncle
had committed alleged act and she pointed out at the accused in his house.
Whereas in cross-examination she stated that, accused was not in house
when she visited his house. There are several discrepancies pointed out by
learned Advocate for the applicant. Considering the nature of evidence and
the fact that, the sentence is of five years, the applicant was on bail during
the trial, case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is made out.
3/4
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2023 15:56:31 :::
D.A.Ethape 12-IA-768-2023.doc
ORDER
(i) Interim Application No. 768 of 2023 is allowed.
(ii) The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed vide judgment
and order dated 20th January 2023 passed by learned Special Judge under
POCSO Act, Greater Bombay in POCSO Case No. 65 of 2017 is suspended
and the applicant is directed to be released on bail in executing PR Bond in
the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(iii) The applicant shall report concerned police station once in six months
on First Saturday of the month between 11.00 am to 01.00 pm.
(iv) Interim Application stands disposed off.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
