Bombay High Court
Pramod S/O Mohan Suryawanshi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
24:BHC-AS:2
Diksha Rane 909 IA422323.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1003/2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4223/2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1003/2023
PRAMOD MOHAN SURYAWANSHI ..APPLICANT
VS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT
------------
Adv. Sushan Mhatre appointed for the appellant.
Smt. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State.
Adv. Priyanka H. Chavan appointed for the victim.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 3, 2024.
ORDER JUDGMENT :
1. Learned APP has placed a communication dated
5/1/2023 addressed by the appellant on record. In the said
letter, the appellant has expressed his desire not to
prosecute the present appeal as he is not in a financial
condition to engage a lawyer and hence, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal. It is further stated in the said letter
that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is two years
rigorous imprisonment of which he has already undergone
Diksha Rane 909 IA422323.doc
more than one year four months and therefore, considering
that the appellant is to serve the sentence soon, he does
not wish to proceed any further with the appeal.
2. With the assistance of learned APP, I have perused the
paper-book. On 20/10/2023, this Court passed the following
order:-
"1. This application is filed for suspension of
sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on the
applicant by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in
Special (POCSO) Case No. 321 of 2016, under Section
354 of Indian Penal Code and Section 11(i) punishable
under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Maximum sentence imposed on the applicant is of
two years. After conviction, trial Court suspended the
substantive sentence. Applicant has deposited fine
amount. According to the applicant due to covid, he
could not file appeal within time. Since the sentence
imposed on the applicant is short term, application is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
(i) During the pendency of present appeal, substantive
sentence of imprisonment imposed upon applicant is
suspended.
(ii) Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing PR
bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety
in the like amount.
(iii) Applicant shall attend trial Court once in a month
on first Monday."
Diksha Rane 909 IA422323.doc
3. Despite being enlarged on bail, it seems that the
appellant could not avail of the facility of bail as he was not
in a position to furnish solvent surety, moreover because of
the financial condition he could not avail the services of a
lawyer. As on date the appellant has served the sentence of
one year, five months and seven days.
4. I, therefore, requested Mr. Sushan Mhatre to appear on
behalf of the appellant and assist his Court on the merits of
the appeal. In view of the order dated 1/9/2023, I had also
requested Advocate Priyanka H. Chavan to appear on behalf
of the complainant and assist this Court.
5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the
appellant, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the respondent no.2, I have perused the judgment and order
of the trial Court as well as the paper-book. The appellant
was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section
354 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 11(i) read
with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
6. The victim, at the relevant time, was around 16 years
of age, a minor. On 20/1/2016, the victim's father made a
Diksha Rane 909 IA422323.doc
phone call to the informant to search for the victim who had
left the house. A girl resembling the victim was seen on a
motorcycle with one boy proceeding towards 'Ritesh Lodge'.
The informant followed the motorcycle and realized that the
boy who is the accused and the victim went in a room of the
lodge. The victim's father reached the lodge and confronted
the accused. On seeing him, the accused fled away. The
accused, at the relevant time, was 22 years of age.
7. Learned counsel Mr. Mhatre, assailing the impugned
order submitted that the evidence on record would
demonstrate that the relationship between the appellant
and the victim was consensual in nature. It is further
submitted that the victim was of the age of understanding
the consequences of the relationship.
8. As indicated earlier, the appellant expressed his desire
that he does not wish to prosecute the appeal. The
applicant has also undergone one year, five months and
seven days sentence as on today including remission. In my
opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
considering the age of the appellant and having regard to
overall circumstances, in the interest of justice, though the
Diksha Rane 909 IA422323.doc
conviction can be maintained, the sentence is reduced to
the one that is already undergone. The appellant may be
forthwith set at liberty.
9. I find from the order 20/10/2023 passed by this Court
in Interim Application No.2130/2023 that the fine amount
has been deposited by the appellant. The fine amount so
deposited shall abide by the order that has been passed by
the trial Court.
10. The impugned order is interfered with to the limited
extent indicated above.
11. This judgment be communicated by learned APP
forthwith to the Superintendent/Jailer, Yerwada Central
Prison, Pune.
12. Registry is also directed to communicate this judgment
to the Superintendent/Jailer, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.
13. I appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by
Advocate Sushan Mhatre, who appeared on behalf of
appellant and Advocate Priyanka H. Chavan, who appeared
on behalf of the respondent No.2 in this proceeding. Their
engagement may be regularized by the Maharashtra State
Diksha Rane 909 IA422323.doc
Legal Services Authority.
14. The appeal is disposed of.
15. The Interim Application is also disposed of.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/01/2024 18:18:18
