[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Anmol Sunil Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 3 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:33306
REVN-228-2024 dt.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 228 OF 2024
Anmol Sunil Shinde
Age - 19 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Vasudeo Galli, Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad ...Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Officer Incharge,
Police Station Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad
2. X (Name withheld) ...Respondents
***
• Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicant
• Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, APP for the Respondent No. 1/State
• Mr. B. A. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 01, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 03, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. In instant revision, there is challenge to common order passed
below Exhibits 19 and 23 dated 22.06.2023 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge - 2, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 50/2018 whereby
learned Trial Judge was pleased to direct framing of additional charges for
offences under Section 376-A, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act.
(POCSO Act).
PAGE 1 OF 8
REVN-228-2024 dt.odt
2. In nutshell, case in trial Court is that on report of mother of a
minor/victim dated 24.02.2017 attributing abetment to commit suicide of
the minor against present revision applicant, crime came to be registered at
Tuljapur Police Station bearing no. 68/2017 for offence under Section 305
of IPC. Subsequently, in view of supplementary statement of informant
dated 25.02.2017 alleging rape on the deceased minor, on application of
informant exhibit 19, learned Trial Court was pleased to direct addition of
charges under Sections 376-A, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 8 & 12 of
POCSO Act. At the same time, application exhibit 23 was also pressed into
service by prosecution for addition of charges to above extent and the same
came to be allowed by common order dated 22.06.2023 directing addition
of charges as prayed.
Hence, instant revision.
3. Learned counsel for revision applicant-original accused would
submit that, there is false implication. He pointed out that, deceased was
few months above to 17 years had allegedly consumed poison while she was
in her house and in the company of her family members including
informant. Therefore, according to him, there is no question of abetment or
inducement to commit suicide. He pointed out that, even alleged
consumption and suicide was of 18.02.2017 but there is delay in lodging
first information report (FIR) as it is lodged on 24.02.2017 and for more
PAGE 2 OF 8
REVN-228-2024 dt.odt
reasons, complaint is false and afterthought. He further pointed out that,
admittedly, there was affair between the deceased girl and applicant and to
that extent, even mother has stated in the report and, therefore, there is no
question of inducing deceased to commit suicide. He further pointed out
that, subsequently to further falsely implicate and aggravate the allegations,
supplementary statement of the informant is recorded on 25.02.2017
wherein, for the first time, allegations are raised about minor informing
informant and her uncle about forceful sexual relations maintained by
revision applicant with her and as such, it is alleged that there was mental
cruelty resulting into commission of suicide.
4. Learned counsel vociferously submitted that, firstly, information
to mother and uncle is hearsay evidence. That, there is no whisper to that
extent in the FIR. He further submitted that surprisingly maternal uncle also
claims to have heard from his niece about forceful physical relations but said
uncle, in spite of allegedly claiming to have heard from informant about
forceful sexual relations on 10.02.2017, there was no reporting to that
extent at any point of time and directly statement to above effect is given on
07.03.2017. Therefore, he questions the credibility of the supplementary
statement of the informant as well as of uncle.
5 He further pointed out that, in fact there is no evidence to
attract charges of Sections 376-A, 504, 506 of IPC or provisions of POCSO
PAGE 3 OF 8
REVN-228-2024 dt.odt
Act as, according to him, there is no material in that regard. He pointed out
that, there is no evidence of victim as she is no more and even there is no
medical or scientific evidence in the entire charge-sheet to support or add
above charges. Learned counsel took this Court through the post mortem
report and would point out that, the same is silent about any findings about
offence of 376-A of IPC and he further pointed out that, even in a query by
investigating officer to medical expert, it was conveyed by the autopsy
surgeon that, in spite of examination of genitals of deceased, no evidence of
conception or abortion were noticed. Therefore, for above reasons, learned
counsel for revision applicant questions the impugned order and prays to set
aside the order and directing dropping of charge as regard offences under
IPC and for offence punishable under POCSO Act.
6. Above application is strongly opposed by learned APP who
would submit that, victim was shown to be minor. That, on the day of
suicide dated 18.02.2017, deceased had come home and reported to her
mother that she was slapped by applicant and he had refused to marry her.
Therefore, she felt cheated and consumed poison and succumbed. According
to learned APP, there was no other reason for deceased to commit suicide.
She further submitted that, admittedly, at later point of time mother gave
supplementary statement regarding learning from a daughter that there
were forceful physical relations with her daughter by the accused and
PAGE 4 OF 8
REVN-228-2024 dt.odt
therefore, application for addition of charge was preferred by both
informant and prosecution. That, learned Trial Court correctly appreciated
the same and has passed impugned common order. She further submitted
that, there are statements of complainant and other relatives in above
regard. Therefore, there being material, there is no error on the part of
learned Trial Court in allowing applications for addition of charges and
hence, she urges to dismiss the revision for want of merits.
7. Perused the papers and charge-sheet. Here, applications for
addition of charge are allowed by learned Trial Judge for above offences and
the same is taken exception to. Initially, on report of mother of deceased,
crime was registered for offence under Section 305 of IPC. Subsequently,
application exhibits 19 and 23 for addition of charge are tendered by
informant as well as by prosecution.
8. In initial report, resulting into registration of crime, mother has
informed to police on 24.02.2017 that, her minor daughter aged 17 had
failed in 10th standard and as such, she was put up in the house itself and
since 2 years prior she had affair with present revision applicant and she
had learned about it and informant had told her daughter as well as revision
applicant on 16.02.2017 that they both would be married off. She reported
that on 18.02.2017 friend of her minor daughter, namely, Radhika came and
took her daughter to the college on pretext of some work and at around
PAGE 5 OF 8
REVN-228-2024 dt.odt
12.00 noon her daughter returned but she was found to be upset and when
its reason was asked, she was allegedly told that in the college revision
applicant slapped her and declared that he would not marry her and also
removed the wedding ring. She further reported that, thereafter dispute was
resolved by one Sandip and Radhika and they all together had edibles. On
hearing to that extent, informant claims that, she pacified her daughter and
also gave her understanding. That, while informant was busy in the kitchen,
her daughter complained of uneasiness and vomited and, therefore, was
taken to hospital and there she was examined and declared brought dead.
On her report to the above extent, police registered crime bearing no.
68/2017 for offence under section 305 of IPC.
From above material, it is clearly emerging that regarding
episode of 18.02.2017 report is lodged on 24.02.2017
9. As pointed out, there seems to be supplementary statement of
informant on 25.02.2017, wherein she stated that approximately two days
prior to death, her daughter had informed that present revision applicant
used to rape her against her wish and, therefore, she sought action against
him. Based on such supplementary statement, exhibit 19 has been pressed
into service before Trial Court along with application of State also for similar
directions. Learned Trial Court has allowed both applications directing
addition of charges for offence under sections 376-A, 504 & 506 of IPC and
PAGE 6 OF 8
REVN-228-2024 dt.odt
sections 4, 8 & 12 of POCSO Act.
10. Charge-sheet comprises post mortem report of deceased i.e. an
autopsy conduced at Sub-District Hospital, Tuljapur. As pointed out, in
column no. 15, autopsy surgeon has remarked "no any injury seen over
external genital" and in column no. 17, it is remarked "no any injury mark
all seen over the body". Even in the communication by doctor dated
23.03.2017, while answering query raised by the investigating officer, doctor
has conveyed inability about giving findings regarding since when there
were sexual physical relations with deceased.
11. Therefore, in the light of above material, firstly, FIR is silent
about any rape or forceful physical relations in a belated FIR.
Supplementary statement is given after almost 6 to 7 days of alleged suicide.
Even in supplementary statement, informant has claims about hearing from
her daughter about sexual relations approximately two days prior to the
suicide but there is no reporting. Maternal uncle, whose statement is
recorded, has not taken emergent steps and apparently application for
addition of charge are filed at subsequent point of time. Even otherwise, in
view of above discussion, there is no material for proceeding to frame
charge either under Section 376-A, 504 & 506 of IPC and also under the
provisions of POCSO Act.
PAGE 7 OF 8
REVN-228-2024 dt.odt
12. Revisional Court has powers under Section 397(2) to test the
legality and propriety of the order of framing charge, directing addition of
charge or refusing to frame charge. Therefore, here, upon exercise of such
powers, this Court finds that there is no material or reason to add charges
for above sections for aforesaid reasons. Hence, revisionist succeeds and the
impugned order is required to be interfered with. Hence, I proceed to pass
following order:
ORDER
Criminal Revision Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'C' & 'D'.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 8 OF 8
