Balramkumar Ramvilas Goutam vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 23020 Bom

Bombay High Court

Balramkumar Ramvilas Goutam vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 7 August, 2024

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal

                                                        1/3                          16-APEAL-166-23.odt



                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.166 OF 2023

                            Balramkumar Ramvilas Goutam                        .... Appellant

                                          versus

                            The State of Maharashtra                           .... Respondent
                                                               .......

                            •     Mr. Vaibhav A. Sugdare, appointed advocate for Appellant.
                            •     Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for the State/Respondent.

                                                       CORAM   : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

                                                       DATE    : 07th AUGUST, 2024

                            P.C. :

1. The Appeal is already admitted. Today, the matter is

placed before the Court for consideration of prayer for bail

pending his Appeal.

2. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Sugdare, learned counsel for the

Appellant and Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, learned APP for the

State.

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date:

2024.08.08 15:58:03 +0530 3. The Appellant is convicted for commission of offence

Nesarikar

2/3 16-APEAL-166-23.odt

punishable u/s 6 of POCSO and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for 20 years besides imposition of fine.

4. The prosecution case is that the victim was about 17

years of age at the time of the incidents in May 2018 and June

2018. Her date of birth was 14/04/2001. She was examined as

P.W.6. She has narrated the incident that on two occasions, the

Appellant committed rape on her. The victim became pregnant.

Her pregnancy was medically terminated. However, the DNA

samples of the Appellant, the victim and the product of

conception were sent for testing. Paragraph No.23 of the

impugned judgment mentions that it was proved that the DNA

test was positive stating that the Appellant was the biological

father of the product of conception of the victim. Thus, there is

sufficiently strong evidence against the present Appellant.

5. P.W.8, the Medical Officer has given evidence about the

victim's physical disability as she had loss of 90% of her hearing.

Thus, the ingredients of section 5(k) r/w 6 of POCSO are made

out.

3/3 16-APEAL-166-23.odt

6. Considering this situation, this is not a case where the

Appellant can be granted bail pending his Appeal. The Appeal is

already expedited and it is listed on the final hearing board.

Therefore, the prayer for bail is rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant is at liberty mention

the matter for final hearing.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)