Rakesh Hiraman Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 11395 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:33816

                                                                             16. IA 1844-23.doc




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1844 OF 2023
                                                IN
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1032 OF 2023

             Rakesh Hiraman Chavan                              ...     Petitioners
                        Versus
             The State of Maharashtra
             And Another                                        ...     Respondents
                                           ***
             Mr. Shailesh Kharat a/w Mr. Nagesh Khedkar, Mr. Aniket Thorat i/b
             Mangesh Khedkar for the Applicant.

             Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

             Ms. Keral Mehta for Respondent No.2 (Appointed Advocate)
                                      ***
                             CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE : 6 NOVEMBER 2023 P.C.

. This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of

bail during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal preferred by the

Applicant challenging the judgment and conviction.

2 The Applicant is convicted by the Special Judge, Pune in

Special Case Child Protection No.134 of 2016 under Sections 363 and

376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer

Chittewan 1/4

16. IA 1844-23.doc

rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

3 Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, learned APP for

Respondent No.1-State and learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.

4. Learned Counsel for Applicant/Appellant assailed conviction on

various grounds. He submits that the evidence in respect of age of

victim is inconsistent. There are various contradictions and

omissions in the evidence of the prosecution. He further submits

that considering the fact that the offence in question was committed

in the year 2016, the trial court erred in awarding sentence of 20

years' imprisonment on Applicant. He submits that Applicant has

undergone 8 years imprisonment by this time and, therefore, the

sentence may be suspended.

5 Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and learned

APP for Respondent No.1-State, opposed the application contending

that evidence of the victim is sufficient for conviction and

prosecution has proved offence committed by the Applicant beyond

reasonable doubt. They supported the impugned judgment and order

of conviction.

Chittewan                                                                                    2/4
                                                                  16. IA 1844-23.doc

6. Prima facie there appears substance in the submission of

Applicant that the prosecution's evidence in respect of age of victim

is inconsistent, the benefit of the same needs to be given to

Applicant. Learned Counsel is justified in submitting that trial court

could not have imposed sentence of 20 years of imprisonment, as

offence had taken place in the year 2016 and the amendment

providing 20 years imprisonment is introduced in the year 2019.

Thus, at the most sentence of 10 years imprisonment could have

been imposed on the Applicant. By this time, Applicant has

undergone 8 years of sentence and his appeal is not likely to be

heard in the near future. In this view of the matter, Applicant has

made out a case for bail, during the pendency of his appeal. Hence,

the following order :-

(i) Interim Application is allowed.

(ii) Substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed vide judgment and order dated 19 November 2021 Special Case Child Protection No.134 of 2016 is suspended during the pendency of the Appeal.

(iii) Applicant-Rakesh Hiraman Chavan be released on bail on executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with

Chittewan 3/4

16. IA 1844-23.doc

one surety in the like amount.

(iv) Applicant-Rakesh Hiraman Chavan shall deposit fine amount, if not already deposited.

(v) Applicant-Rakesh Hiraman Chavan shall attend the concerned police station once in a month on every 1 st Sunday, until further orders.

(vi) Applicant shall furnish his permanent address as well as present address to the concerned police station along with copies of his Aadhar Card and Cell number/s.

(vii) Applicant shall not contact the victim or witnesses.

                                                                  (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




                        Chittewan                                                                       4/4
Signed by: Rajesh Chittewan
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/11/2023 18:17:20