Avdhut @ Jayu Shantaram Rane vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 11211 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:33425

                                                                                    IA-1834-2023.doc




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1834 OF 2023
                                                IN
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2023

                    Avdhut @ Jayu Shantaram Rane                         ...Applicant

                           Versus

                    The State Of Maharashtra and Anr.                    ...Respondents

                    Mr.Aniket Nikam a/w Mr.Amit Icham, Advocate for Applicant.
                    Mr. A. R. Patil APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
                    Mr. Pawan Mali appointed for Respondent No.2.


                                           CORAM       : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

                                           DATE        : 1st NOVEMBER 2023

                    PC.:

1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal

preferred by Applicant challenging the judgment of

conviction.

2. Applicant/Original accused No.1 is convicted by the

learned Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, Oros under Sections

376(2), 376-D, 354(A)(1)(i)(ii), 506 read with 34 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and under sections 4, 8 & 12 of the

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act,

2012 in Special Case (POCSO) No.13 of 2019 and sentenced to

D.A.ETHAPE P.A. .... 1

IA-1834-2023.doc

suffer RI for twenty years and to pay a fne of Rs.4,800/-.

3. Heard learned Advocate for Applicant/Appellant,

learned APP for Respondent-State and learned Advocate for

Respondent No.2.

4. Learned Advocate for Applicant argued on the merits of

conviction by referring to the evidence of prosecution

witnesses and submitted that evidence is unreliable and there

are contradictions, omissions and improvements and

therefore, the same is unbelievable. It is argued that, due to

family dispute with the cousin, Applicant is falsely implicated

in the matter at the instance of her uncle, who is in police

department. It is alleged by the prosecution that victim was

sexually assaulted by Applicant in his own house and at that

time applicant's wife and parents were present in the house,

which is not believable. Victim has admitted that her uncle is

Police Sub-Inspector and his relation with father of Applicant

are not cordial therefore, Applicant is falsely implicated in

the crime. There is delay in lodging the FIR as offence has

taken place in March 2017 whereas the FIR is lodged on 13 th

October 2017. The allegations of prosecution are unbelievable

also on the ground that DNA report of child/baby body

delivered by victim does not match with DNA of Applicant.

 D.A.ETHAPE P.A.                                                           .... 2





                                                              IA-1834-2023.doc

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove charge against

Applicant beyond reasonable doubt. Further submission is

that in spite of their being alleged forceful sexual intercourse

by accused No.1 and accused No.3, victim was behaving

normal and attending her day to day chores, it is only after

she became pregnant and delivered baby boy that the offence

since in question is registered against accused.

5. Learned APP and learned Advocate for Respondent

No.2 opposed the application by supporting impugned

judgment of conviction. They submit that evidence of victim

is suffcient to warrant conviction of Applicant. There are no

contradictions or omissions. The improvements alleged by

Applicant are of minor nature. Applicant since has repeatedly

committed sexual assault on the victim, hence he is rightly

convicted. It is therefore, submitted that no case is made out

by Applicant for suspension of his sentence of imprisonment.

6. I have given careful consideration to the rival

submissions by learned counsel. Perused the evidence of

prosecution witnesses and impugned judgment. I am of the

prima facie opinion that fndings recorded by trial Court are

sustainable as there is suffcient evidence that Applicant has

committed the offence for which he is convicted. In this view

D.A.ETHAPE P.A. .... 3

IA-1834-2023.doc

of the matter, I do not wish to elaborate the reasons in this

order as the appeal fled by Applicant is pending for hearing

and fnal disposal. No case for bail, pending appeal, is made

out. Hence, the following order:-

(i) Interim Application stands rejected.

(ii) Hearing of Criminal Appeal is expedited.

                               (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




 D.A.ETHAPE P.A.                                                   .... 4