[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Gopal Manik Biradar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:35341
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.148 OF 2022
Gopal S/o. Manik Biradar,
Age : 35 years, Occu : Agriculture, ... Appellant
R/o. Mategadi, Tal. Deoni, Dist. Latur (Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Deoni,
Tal. Deoni, Dist. Latur
2. XYZ ... Respondents
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3884 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.148 OF 2022
.....
Shri. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri. A. D. Wange, APP for the Respondent - State.
Shri. B. K. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 (Appointed through
legal aid)
.....
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
Reserved on : 08.12.2025
Pronounced on : 16.12.2025
JUDGMENT :
-
. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order
dated 13.01.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special
Judge-2, Udgir in Spl. (POCSO) Case No.7/2019 convicting the
Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act ( for short, 'POCSO') and sentencing
him to suffer three (3) years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of
Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand), in default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for three (3) months, and further convicting him for the
offence punishable under Section 354A(1) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and sentencing him to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for six (6) months and fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.
Ten Thousand), in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one
(1) month.
2. The Prosecution's case, in brief, as seen from the Police Report, is
as under:
2.1. The Victim was studying in 7th Std. On 25.01.2019 in the morning
she went to her school and after the school went to the house of her
maternal aunt around 01:00 p.m. While returning to her village,
she came to the bus stop at Dhanegaon at 05:30 p.m. At that time,
the Appellant came on the Motorcycle and told her that, he was going to
the village and asked her to sit on the Motorcycle. The Victim sat on the
Motorcycle. On the way to the village, the Appellant stopped the
Motorcycle around 06:00 p.m. for urination and he put his hand around
the neck of the Victim and dragged her. The Victim managed to remove
the hand of the Appellant from her neck and escaped. After reaching
home, the Victim informed her Mother about the incident.
2.2. On the next day, the Victim's Mother took the Victim to the Deoni
Police Station and lodged the Report against the Appellant and Crime
bearing No.14/2019 came to be registered against the Appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 354A(1) of the IPC and for the offence
punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO. During the course of
the investigation, the Spot Panchanama was prepared, the Motorcycle of
the Appellant came to be seized, the Statement of the Witnesses were
recorded, the relevant documents came to be prepared, the Appellant
came to be arrested and on completion of the investigation, the
Charge-sheet came to be submitted.
2.3. On committal, the learned Trial Court framed the Charge against
the Appellant for the above referred offences below Exh.5, to which the
Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the
Charge, the Prosecution examined the following witnesses:
PW1 :- Rajkumar Balwant Dhanegave, the Spot Panch
PW2 :- Madhukar Suryabhan Digole, the Panch Witnesses
PW3 :- Mother of the Victim
PW4 :- Victim
PW5 :- Gajanan Vijay Ansapure, the Investigating Officer
2.4. After the Prosecution filed the evidence closure purshish,
the learned Trial Court recorded the Statement of the Appellant under
Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'). The Appellant stated that, he was falsely
implicated. The learned Trial Court, on appreciating the evidence on
record, passed the impugned Judgment and Order convicting and
sentencing the Appellant as above.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant
that, the material testimony is that of the Victim. The age of the Victim
is not disputed. Her evidence do not show the sexual intent on the part
of the Appellant. Even if her evidence is accepted as it is, the essential
ingredients for the offence under which the Appellant is convicted are
not made out. The Appellant gave explanation in the Statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court
wrongly appreciated the evidence on record. The Appellant was entitled
for acquittal. In support of his evidence, he relied on the Judgment of
this Court in Ravindra vs. State of Maharashtra, through PSO Katol,
2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2530.
4. It is submitted by the learned APP that, the age of the Victim is
not disputed. The testimony of the Victim show that, she managed to
escape from the custody of the Appellant. The incident was reported to
the Police on the very next day. There are no suggestions in Cross-
examination that, the Appellant was falsely implicated. The learned Trial
Court has rightly convicted the Appellant and no interference is called
for in the impugned Judgment and order.
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 -
Victim that, the age of the Victim at the relevant time is proved. The
Victim got saved as she managed to escape. The incident was of the
evening. On the next day the Report was lodged. There is no suggestion
that the Appellant was falsely implicated. The Judgment relied by the
learned Advocate for the Appellant is on different facts. The learned
Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellant.
6. According to the Prosecution, the Victim was a Child. The
conviction is for the offence under the provisions of the POCSO. Section
2(d) of the POCSO defines the term "'Child"; the "Child" means any
person below the age of eighteen years. The Appellant admitted the
extract of the admission register of the Zilla Parishad Primary School,
Dhanegaon. Tal. Deoni showing details of the Victim i.e. name, date of
birth etc. As the said document is admitted by the Appellant before the
learned Trial Court, the same can very well be read. In the said
document, the date of birth of the Victim is shown as 08.06.2006. The
said document is of primary school. The evidence of the Victim show
that, the date of incident was 25.01.2019. The evidence of the Victim
who is examined as PW4 show that, she took the primary education in
Zilla Parishad School, Dhanegaon. The evidence of PW3 i.e. Mother of
the Victim and the Informant show that, the Report was lodged on
26.01.2019 for the incident dated 25.01.2019. The evidence of PW5 -
Gajanan Ansapure, the Investigating Officer, show that the crime was
registered on 26.02.2019. There is no challenge to the said evidence. In
view of this evidence on record, it is proved that, the Victim was the
Child at the relevant time i.e. on the date of incident.
7. The case of the Prosecution hinges on the testimony of the Victim.
Her evidence show that, on 25.01.2019 at 08:00 a.m. she had gone to
the School at Dhanegaon by school bus, at that time she was studying in
7th std. Around 01:00 p.m. her school was over and she went to her
maternal aunt. Thereafter around 05:30 p.m., she went to the
Dhanegaon bus stand for going to the village. When she was at the bus
stand, the Appellant came to her and enquired as to where she was
going. The Victim replied that, she was going to the village. The
Appellant told her that, he was going to the village and asked her to
accompany him. Therefore, she sat on the motorcycle. The motorcycle
proceeded towards the village via Helamb village. On the bridge near
the village, the Appellant stopped his motorcycle around 06:00 p.m.
The Appellant told her that he was going for urination and put his hand
around her neck (English recording of evidence reads ' put his hand in
my neck' and the Marathi version reads 'ek>s xG;kr gkr Vkdyk') and
dragged her by the side of road. The Victim removed the hand of the
Appellant from her neck and ran away. The Victim told her Mother
about the said incident. The Victim identified the Appellant before the
learned Trial Court. The Cross-examination show that, the Appellant was
known to her. The suggestion of false implication is denied. She denied
the suggestion that, after discussion with the relatives the Report was
lodged. The testimony of the Victim is natural. Nothing has come in the
Cross-examination of the Victim to crate any dent in her testimony.
Nothing has come in her evidence to show that her testimony was
inconsistent to her version given to the Police.
8. The testimony of PW3 show that, she was the Mother of the
Victim. The Victim narrated the incident to her. Her evidence show
that, on the next day there was flag hoisting ceremony on account of
Republic Day and after the function she along with the Victim went to
the Deoni Police Station and lodged the Report below Exh.16. Her
Cross-examination show that, the Accused was known to her as she had
worked as labourer for him. Her evidence was consistent with her
Report lodged with the Police. She denied the suggestion that, due to
non-payment of wages to her, she had threatened to recover money from
the Appellant and therefore lodged the false Report in respect of false
incident. She further denied that, due to Grampanchayat election and
quarrel between her and the Appellant, the false Report was lodged.
Nothing has come in her Cross-examination to discard her testimony.
9. The evidence of PW5 - Gajanan Vijay Ansapure, Investigating
Officer, speak of the investigation done by him. His evidence show that,
it did not transpire during the investigation that the relation between
the Informant and the Appellant were strained due to financial
transactions. He denied suggestion of filing false Charge-sheet. In the
Cross-examination, it has come that, one offence of committing theft of
sand was registered against the Appellant and the Appellant took away
the tractor which was seized by the Police from the Police Station
without any permission. Though the Spot Panchanama witnesses were
examined by the Prosecution as PW1 - Rajkumar Balwant Dhanegave
and PW2 - Madhukar Suryabhan Digole, they did not support the case
of the Prosecution. The evidence of the Investigating Officer show that,
the Spot Panchanama was prepared below Exh.23 and the Motorcycle
used in the Crime was seized under the Panchanama below Exh.24.
10. The Victim's evidence clearly describes the incident. It is clear
from her evidence that, she knew the Appellant. The act of the
Appellant of approaching her and asking her to come with him to the
village on the motorcycle and stopping the Motorcycle on the bridge by
saying that, he want to go for urination and putting his hand around the
neck of the Victim and dragging her, show the sexual intent. He took
disadvantage of the situation. Victim accompanied him as she knew
him. As the intention is in the mind of the person, it has to be judged or
gathered from the acts. From the testimony of the Victim, the act
committed by the Appellant is proved. It finds corroboration by the
testimony of her Mother who lodged the Report. To say it in another
words, the testimony of the Victim gets corroboration by the Report
lodged by her Mother in respect of the incident. The sequence of the
events as are clear from the testimony of the Victim, no other
interference can be drawn except the one that, the acts of the Appellant
was motivated by sexual intent.
11. In the above referred Judgment cited by the learned Advocate for
the Appellant in Ravindra (supra), the following are the observations:
"32. The expression "sexual intent" is a question of fact and
it is to be determined on the basis of the evidence.
33. In order to understand intention of the accused
behind such utterances, one has to look into the entire
evidence of the prosecution.
34. Admittedly, "intention" is inner compartment of mind
of that person and has to be determined from surrounding
facts and circumstances. If somebody says that he is in love
with another person or expresses his feelings itself would not
amount to an "intent" showing some sort of his "sexual
intention". What constitutes such "sexuality" or "sexual
intent" and what is not, is a question of fact.
35. While interpreting "sexual intent", single judge bench
of this court in the case of Bandu Vitthalrao Borwar vs. State
of Maharashtra, thr. PSO, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16128
observed that perhaps understanding generally accepted
meaning of words "sexual" and "intent" will help us in finding
out an answer. Words 'sexual' and 'intent' have not been
defined anywhere in the Act and, therefore, it would be
useful to understand their meaning as are commonly
understood in English language. For this purpose, a reference
to the English dictionary would be useful. In Webster's New
Explorer Encyclopedic Dictionary, 2006 th Edition, the words
'sexual' and 'intent' have been defined on Page Nos.1683 and
959 respectively as under:
"Sexual" : 1 : of, relating to, or associated with sex or
the sexes (sexual differentiation) (sexual conflict) 2: having
or involving sex (sexual reproduction)",
"Intent" : "1a : the act or fact of intending : PURPOSE;
especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or
criminal act (admitted wounding him with intent)., and
b : the state of mind with which an act is done :
VOLITION. 2 : a usually clearly formulated or planned
intention : AIM 3a :MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE b :
CONNOTATION".
36. Thus, the state of mind, must be to establish some sort
of physical contact or must be related to or associated with
sex or indicative of involvement of sex in the relationship, if
it is to be considered as sexual. Words uttered should be with
"sexual intent" associated with indicative of involvement of
sex or physical contact or expressing sexual overtures. Words
expressed "I Love You" would not by itself amount to "sexual
intent" as contemplated by the legislature. There should be
something more which must suggest that the real intention is
to drag in the angle of sex, if the words uttered are to be
taken as conveying sexual intent. It should reflect by the act."
12. The said decision was on entirely different facts. The facts in the case
at hand are different. Examining the proved facts of this case in the light of
the above referred observations from the said Judgment, the act of the
Appellant clearly show the sexual intent on his part involving physical contact
with the Victim. The above discussed evidence on record makes out the
essential ingredients for the offence of sexual assault as defined under Section
7 and punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO and Section 354A(1) of the
IPC which are in respect of sexual harassment. As the essential
ingredients for the above referred sections are clearly made out from
the evidence on record, the presumption under Section 29 of the
POCSO comes into play or operation. Except denial and contention of
false implication, there is nothing to show that the Appellant was
successful in rebutting the presumption. In his Statement under Section
313 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., it is stated by the Appellant that, he was
married and having two children and due to the quarrel and for the
reason of taking over the tractor from the Police Station, the Informant
and the Police falsely implicated him. The defence taken by the
Appellant is not probable in the light of the clear, cogent and unshaken
evidence of the Prosecution. The learned Trial Court has imposed the
minimum sentence for the proved offences. I find no merit in the
Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed, hence the following
order.
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Record and Proceedings be sent to the learned Trial Court.
(iii) Pending Civil Application stands disposed off.
(iv) The fees of the learned Advocate appointed through legal aid to
represent Respondent No.2 - Victim is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten
Thousand), which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services
Sub-Committee, Aurangabad Bench.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/12/2025 14:22:03
