Bombay High Court
Chhagan @ Rahul S/O. Shrawan Kadawe vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Officer, ... on 2 February, 2024
Author: M. W. Chandwani
Bench: M. W. Chandwani
2024:BHC-NAG:1412
1 22-apeal-620-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 1013 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2023
Chhagan @ Rahul S/o. Shrawan Kadawe
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and another
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Ms. Payal Kaware a/w. Shri Suraj R. Babhulkar, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Aalap Palshikar, APP for non-applicant no. 1/State.
Ms. Himani Badani, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant no. 2.
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED :- 02.02.2024
Heard.
2. By this application the applicant is seeking
suspension of substantive sentence imposed vide
judgment and order dated 07.02.2023 passed by Extra Jt.
Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court), Wardha in
Spl. (Ch.Act) Case No. 21/2018. The applicant has been
convicted in the following manner:-
a) for the offence punishable under Section 6 r/w. 18
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2013 (for short, "POCSO Act"), to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/-,3,000/-,
in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for six
months.
RR Jaiswal
2 22-apeal-620-23.odt
b) for the offence punishable under Section 363 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC), to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of
₹3,000/-,2000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment
for one month.
c) for the offence punishable under Section 366 of
the IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years
and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/-,3000/-, in default to suffer further
simple imprisonment for two month.
d) for the offence punishable under Section 354-A of
the IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and
to pay a fine of ₹3,000/-,1000/-, in default to suffer further
simple imprisonment for one month.
e) for the offence punishable under Section 354 of
the IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years
and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/-,2000/-, in default to suffer further
simple imprisonment for two month.
It is also directed that all the substantive
sentences shall run concurrently.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the
learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has
been convicted and sentenced for a fixed term and the
appeal may take considerable time. There are material
contradictions between the victim and her relatives.
According to her, except the victim, nobody has stated
about removing of clothes of the victim by the applicant.
RR Jaiswal
3 22-apeal-620-23.odt
According to her, the applicant has a good case on merit
hence, she prayed for suspension of substantive sentence.
4. Per contra, the learned APP for the State and
the learned counsel appointed for the non-applicant no. 2
submit that there is consistent version of the victim and
her relatives that she was kidnapped and taken to a field
and when her brother and mother along with their
relatives came to the field, the applicant run away.
5. Perusal of the evidence goes to show that the
none of the relatives of the victim have deposed that the
victim informed them about removing of clothes, from
her person, by the applicant. Whether the applicant
abetted the offence punishable under Section 6 of the
POCSO Act is to be considered while hearing the appeal
after detail scrutiny of the evidence on record. An
arguable case is made out. The applicant is convicted for
a fixed term of five years and the hearing of the appeal
may take time. In case of acquittal of the applicant, the
position will not be reversible. Hence, a case is made out
for suspension of substantive sentence imposed upon the
applicant. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
i) The application is allowed.
ii) During the pendency of the appeal, the
substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant vide
judgment and order dated 07.02.2023 passed by Extra Jt.
Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court), Wardha in
Spl. (Ch.Act) Case No. 21/2018 shall remain suspended.
RR Jaiswal
4 22-apeal-620-23.odt
iii) The applicant be released on bail on
executing a PR bond of ₹3,000/-,25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount.
iv) The applicant shall appear before this Court
at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
v) The applicant shall not enter the village
Taroda, Tahsil Karanja (Ghadge), District Wardha till the
disposal of the appeal.
vi) The fees of the learned counsel appointed to
represent the non-applicant no. 2, shall quantify as per
the rules.
The Registry is directed to process the appeal
as per rules.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal
RRToJaiswal
Designation: PA Honourable Judge
Date: 05/02/2024 18:48:05
