[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sunil Deorao Ratne vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Digras ... on 18 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14465
1 apeal-382-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 382/2020
Sunil Deorao Ratne : APPELLANT
Aged about 29 years, R/o Digras,
Tq. Digras, Dist. Yavatmal
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, : RESPONDENT
Through Police Station Officer,
Digras, District : Yavatmal
Mr. H.S. Chawhan, Advocate for the Appellant
Ms. S.N. Thakur, Adll.P.P. for the Respondent
CORAM : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.
Date of reserving the judgment : 15.12.2025
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 18.12.2025
JUDGMENT :
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
10.05.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Darwha, in Special Case
(POCSO) No.12 of 2016. By the said judgment, the appellant was
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and 506
of the Indian Penal Code (In short, 'IPC') and Sections 8 and 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (In short, 'POCSO
Act'). He was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine, as
detailed in the impugned judgment. The appellant was, however,
2 apeal-382-2020.odt
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (In
short 'Atrocities Act').
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the victim was about 15
years old at the time of alleged incident. According to the complaint dated
27.09.2015, on the same day at about 1:30 p.m., the victim was cleaning
utensils in front of her house situated at Wadarpura, Digras. It is alleged
that the appellant passed by and made an indecent gesture by blinking his
eyes towards her. The victim reacted by abusing him and slapping him. It
is further alleged that thereafter the appellant caught hold of the hand of
the victim and threatened her by saying that she belonged to him and that
if she resisted, he would rape her and kill her. After issuing such threat,
the appellant allegedly left the spot. The victim disclosed the incident to
her mother and grandmother immediately thereafter and subsequently
informed her father. On the basis of the said disclosure, the report came to
be lodged at Police Station Digras.
3. On the said report, Crime No.347 of 2015 was registered. During
the course of investigation, the spot panchnama was prepared. The
Investigating Officer collected the school leaving certificate, school
admission and discharge extract, and caste certificate of the victim. The
appellant was arrested during investigation. Statements of witnesses were
3 apeal-382-2020.odt
recorded and, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed
before the competent Court.
4. The learned trial Court framed Charge (Exhibit No.2) against the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and 506
of the IPC, Section 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act, and Sections 8 and 12 of
the POCSO Act. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant
in vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution examined five witnesses including PW 1 - mother
of the victim at Exh.14, PW-2 victim at Exh.15, PW3 Limbaji Sadashio
Kadam, panch witness at Exh.23, PW 4 Ashok Shankarrao Chukekar, Head
Master of School at Exh.26 and PW 5 Kalpana Manikrao Bharade, SDPO at
Exh.34.
6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the
appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed false
implication. His defence was that there was a previous dispute with the
parents of the victim and, due to such enmity, a false case had been filed
against him.
4 apeal-382-2020.odt
7. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court
held that the prosecution had proved that the appellant had made
indecent gestures towards the victim and had caught hold of her hand.
The learned trial Court concluded that such acts amounted to use of
criminal force with sexual intent and thereby constituted offences
punishable under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC. The learned trial
Court further held that the act of holding the hand of the minor victim
amounted to physical contact with sexual intent, thereby satisfying the
ingredients of Section 7 of the POCSO Act, and consequently convicted the
appellant under Section 8 of the said Act. The appellant was also
convicted under Section 12 of the POCSO Act for issuing threats to the
victim.
8. So far as the charge under the Atrocities Act is concerned, the
learned trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the
victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, as her Caste Certificate mentioned
her caste as "Boudha". Accordingly, the appellant was acquitted of the said
offence.
Aggrieved by the findings of conviction and the sentences imposed
by the learned trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
9. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:
Mr. Chawhan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed
the impugned judgment on the following grounds:
5 apeal-382-2020.odt
(i) He submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, one
Vishal Landge was present at the spot. The said person had intervened and
pacified the quarrel between the appellant and the victim and thereafter
took the appellant away from the place of incident. Despite being a
material eye-witness, the said Vishal Landge has not been examined by the
prosecution. The non-examination of such a crucial witness creates a
serious lacuna in the prosecution case. It was further pointed out that even
in her deposition, the victim has admitted the presence of Vishal Landge
during the incident.
(ii) It was further submitted that the house of the victim is
situated adjacent to a main road, which is a crowded place. In such
circumstances, the absence of any independent witness to the alleged
incident raises serious doubt about the prosecution version. It was also
contended that the spot panchnama has not been proved, as the panch
witness has turned hostile. Therefore, the very place of occurrence has not
been duly established, which is fatal to the prosecution case.
(iii) Learned Counsel further submitted that the School Leaving
Certificate of the victim has been proved through the Head Master of the
school and not through the Clerk who maintains and is the custodian of
the relevant school records. According to him, the age of the victim has
thus not been proved in accordance with law.
(iv) It was contended that though the learned trial Court has
observed that the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to record a
6 apeal-382-2020.odt
conviction, such testimony must be of sterling quality and must inspire
complete confidence. In the present case, according to the learned
Counsel, the testimony of the victim suffers from material infirmities and
does not meet the required standard.
(v) Learned Counsel lastly submitted that the facts alleged do not
constitute an offence under Section 354-A of the IPC or under Sections 8
and 12 of the POCSO Act. He further pointed out that the appellant was in
custody from 03.11.2018 to 29.09.2020 and has already undergone a
substantial period of imprisonment. The sentence was suspended by this
Court on 29.09.2020.
10. Submissions on behalf of the State:
Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Sonia
Thakur supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the victim
was a minor aged 15 years at the time of the incident. There was no
reason for the victim to falsely implicate the appellant, as no prior
animosity between them has been brought on record. It was argued that if
the testimony of the victim is found to be reliable and inspires confidence,
no corroboration is required in law.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that
outraging the modesty of a woman, particularly a minor girl, is a serious
offence. According to the prosecution, the evidence on record clearly
establishes that after the victim had slapped the appellant, the appellant
7 apeal-382-2020.odt
caught hold of her hand and threatened her, thereby applying criminal
force with sexual intent. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly
convicted the appellant under Sections 354, 354-A and 506 of the IPC
read with Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. It was submitted that the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court are well-reasoned and do not
call for any interference by this Court.
Appreciation of Depositions of Prosecution Witnesses :
11. PW-1 - Mother of the Victim : PW-1 is the mother of the victim. She
was not present at the time of the alleged incident, as she herself admitted
that she had gone to her work and returned home only at about 3:00 p.m.
Her evidence is entirely based on what was narrated to her by the victim.
She has no personal knowledge of the incident. Her testimony is thus
hearsay in nature and does not provide any direct corroboration to the
prosecution case. Beyond stating that her daughter informed her about the
incident, no independent fact has been proved through her deposition.
12. PW-2 - Victim : The testimony of PW-2 forms the foundation of the
prosecution case. She stated that the incident occurred at about 1:30 p.m.
in front of her house, which is situated adjacent to a public road. She
admitted that people frequently pass through the said road throughout the
day. Despite this, she stated that no one else, except Vishal Landge,
witnessed the incident. Importantly, PW-2 admitted that Vishal Landge
8 apeal-382-2020.odt
was present at the spot, that he intervened, and that after persuasion, the
accused left the place. Vishal Landge is thus a natural and material eye-
witness, yet the prosecution has failed to examine him without offering
any explanation. This omission assumes significance. PW-2 further
admitted that her grandmother, aged about 69 years, was at home at the
aforesaid time. However, she stated that no one except Vishal Landge
knew about the incident until her parents returned home. This version
appears doubtful in view of the location of the house and the time of the
incident.
In cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that she stated before the
police that the appellant told her that he loved her, but she could not
assign any reason as to why this important fact does not appear in her
police statement. This omission is material in nature and affects the
consistency of her testimony. Thus, while PW-2 alleges that the appellant
caught hold of her hand and issued threats, her testimony suffers from
omissions, lack of corroboration, and surrounding circumstances which
make it unsafe to rely upon her sole testimony without independent
support.
13. PW-3 - Panch Witness : PW-3 was examined to prove the spot
panchnama. He did not support the prosecution case and categorically
denied that the police prepared the spot panchnama in his presence. He
also denied that the contents of the panchnama were read over to him.
9 apeal-382-2020.odt
PW-3 was declared hostile. As a result, the spot panchnama has not been
proved through independent evidence. The place of occurrence, therefore,
remains doubtful. This is a serious weakness in the prosecution case,
particularly when the incident is alleged to have occurred in a public
place.
14. PW-4 - Head Master: PW-4 produced the School Leaving Certificate
and admission register to prove the age of the victim. However, in cross-
examination, he admitted that the entries in the admission and discharge
register are normally made by the clerk and that he could not say what
documents were produced at the time of admission of the victim. He
further admitted that he had not seen the birth certificate or any hospital
record of the victim at the time of admission. PW-4 also admitted that he
could not produce the earlier transfer certificate of the victim. Thus, the
date of birth entered in the school record is not supported by primary
documentary evidence. In the absence of proof regarding the basis of such
entry, the age of the victim is not established beyond doubt. Further, PW-4
stated that the caste of the victim as per school record is shown as
"Boudha", which contradicts the claim of the victim that she belongs to
"Mahar" caste. This contradiction assumes relevance and further weakens
the prosecution case.
10 apeal-382-2020.odt
15. PW-5 - Investigating Officer: PW-5 stated that he prepared the spot
panchnama and collected documents regarding age and caste of the
victim. However, he admitted that no notice was issued to the panch
witnesses. The spot panchnama is not corroborated by PW-3, who turned
hostile. The Investigating Officer has relied entirely on the school record
without establishing the authenticity of the source document for age
determination. His evidence does not cure the lacunae arising from non-
examination of material witnesses and failure to prove the spot of
incident.
16. This Court has carefully re-appreciated the entire oral and
documentary evidence on record in light of the submissions advanced by
the learned Counsel for the parties.
17. The prosecution case rests primarily on the testimony of the victim
(PW-2). It is a well settled law that the sole testimony of the victim can
form the basis of conviction, provided it is cogent, reliable and inspires full
confidence. However, where the testimony suffers from material
omissions, inconsistencies or does not inspire confidence, the Court is
required to exercise caution and extend the benefit of doubt to the
accused.
11 apeal-382-2020.odt
18. In the present case, the victim has stated that at the time of the
incident one Vishal Landge was present and that he intervened and
persuaded the appellant and the appellant left the spot. The presence of
Vishal Landge at the time of the incident is thus admitted by the victim
herself. Despite being a natural and material eye-witness, the said Vishal
Landge has not been examined by the prosecution. No explanation has
been offered for his non-examination. The non-examination of such a
crucial witness gives rise to a serious doubt about the correctness of the
prosecution version.
19. Further, the spot of the alleged incident is stated to be in front of the
house of the victim, which admittedly is situated adjacent to a main road.
The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 1:30 p.m., a time
when public movement is expected. In such circumstances, the absence of
any independent witness assumes significance. The prosecution has not
examined any neighbour or passer-by, though they were readily available.
This omission weakens the prosecution case.
20. The spot panchnama also does not advance the prosecution case.
The panch witness has turned hostile and has not supported the
prosecution. As a result, the spot of the incident has not been duly proved.
In a case where the incident is alleged to have occurred in a public place,
12 apeal-382-2020.odt
failure to establish the place of occurrence creates a serious dent in the
prosecution story.
21. As regards the age of the victim, the school leaving certificate has
been proved through the Head Master (PW-4). Though the document has
been exhibited, it is noticed that the Clerk who maintains the school
records and is the custodian of such documents has not been examined. In
the facts of the present case, this lapse assumes importance, as the
prosecution case itself suffers from other infirmities and the age of the
victim is a foundational fact for applicability of the provisions of the
POCSO Act.
22. It is true that the sole testimony of the victim can form the basis of
conviction. However, such testimony must be of sterling quality and must
inspire complete confidence. In the present case, the testimony of the
victim suffers from material omissions, lack of corroboration and
surrounding circumstances which render the prosecution version doubtful.
23. The conviction of the appellant under the provisions of the POCSO
Act is based on the allegation that the appellant caught hold of the hand of
the victim. Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines "sexual assault" as an act
involving physical contact with sexual intent. The relevant provision reads
thus:
13 apeal-382-2020.odt
"7. Sexual assault.--Whoever, with sexual intent touches
the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the
child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or
any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent
which involves physical contact without penetration, is said to
commit sexual assault."
24. The crucial question, therefore, is whether the act of holding the
hand of the victim was done with sexual intent. The evidence on record
shows that the victim had slapped the appellant immediately prior to the
alleged act. The act of holding the hand, viewed in the factual context of
the incident, appears to be an immediate reaction rather than an act
motivated by sexual intent. The prosecution has failed to bring on record
any cogent material to establish sexual intent beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Similarly, for an offence under Section 354 of the IPC, the
prosecution is required to establish that criminal force was used with the
intention to outrage the modesty of a woman. Section 354 of the IPC reads
as under:
"354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to
outrage her modesty.-Whoever assaults or uses criminal force
to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely
that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished..."
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR
1967 SC 63, has held that the intention of the accused is the decisive
factor for attracting Section 354 of the IPC. The culpable mental state of
14 apeal-382-2020.odt
the accused must be clearly established from the evidence on record. The
ratio laid down in the said case is as follows :
"15. Section 10 of the Indian Penal Code explains that
"woman" denotes a female human being of any age. The
expression "woman" is used in S. 354 in conformity with this
explanation, see S. 7. The offence punishable under S. 354 is
an assault on or use of criminal force to a woman with the
intention of outraging her modesty or with the knowledge of
the likelihood of doing so. The Code does not define "modesty".
What then is a woman's modesty?
16. I think that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex.
The modesty of an adult female is writ large on her body.
Young or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping, the
woman possesses a modesty capable of being outraged.
Whoever uses criminal force to her with intent to outrage her
modesty commits an offence punishable under S. 354. The
culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The
reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not
always decisive, as, for example, when the accused with a
corrupt mind stealthily touches the flesh of a sleeping woman.
She may be an idiot, she may be under the spell of anaesthesia,
she may be sleeping, she may be unable to appreciate the
significance of the act; nevertheless, the offender is punishable
under the section."
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Raju Panduran Mahale Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, (2004) 4 SCC 371 relied on the dictionary
meaning of 'modesty' which reads thus:
"Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English
language defines modesty as freedom from coarseness,
indelicacy or indecency: a regard for propriety in dress,
speech or conduct". In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933
Edn) the meaning of the word "modesty" is given as
"womanly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of
thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or
sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to
impure or coarse suggestions".
15 apeal-382-2020.odt
28. If the aforesaid test is applied to the facts of the present case, it
emerges that except for a bare allegation of holding the hand of the
victim, there is no cogent material on record to indicate that the appellant
acted with the requisite intention to outrage the modesty of the victim.
Admittedly, the victim did not sustain any injury, nor was she subjected to
medical examination, which could have lent corroborative support to the
prosecution version. It is further significant that Vishal Landge, an eye-
witness who was admittedly present at the time of the incident and is a
material witness, has not been examined by the prosecution without any
plausible explanation. The house of the victim is situated abutting a main
road where public movement is frequent, yet no independent witness from
the vicinity has been examined. This omission assumes relevance while
appreciating the credibility of the prosecution case.
29. It is no doubt a settled position of law that the testimony of the
prosecutrix does not require corroboration, provided it inspires confidence
and is found to be trustworthy. However, in the present case, the evidence
of the victim does not pass that test. According to her own version, she
slapped the appellant and, in response, the appellant allegedly held her
hand and made certain utterances. Notably, the nature and contents of
such utterances appear to have been improved upon during her deposition
before the Court. The entire incident is stated to have occurred in the
presence of Vishal Landge, whose non-examination creates a serious dent
16 apeal-382-2020.odt
in the prosecution story and renders the version of the victim doubtful.
These circumstances, though each may not be decisive in isolation, when
cumulatively considered along with the other infirmities in the prosecution
case, give rise to a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version.
Consequently, the testimony of the victim, in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, does not inspire the requisite confidence to sustain the
conviction.
30. The conduct of the parties as emerging from the evidence also
requires consideration. According to the prosecution, the victim herself
abused and slapped the appellant. The subsequent allegation of catching
hold of the hand and issuing threats is not supported by any independent
evidence. The defence of the appellant that there was prior dispute with
the parents of the victim has not been ruled out completely and appears
plausible in the light of the infirmities noted above.
31. The learned trial Court has proceeded on the premise that mere
holding of the hand of the victim amounts to sexual assault under Section
7 of the POCSO Act. However, for an offence under Section 7, the
prosecution must establish physical contact with sexual intent. In the
present case, except the bare statement of the victim, there is no material
on record to conclusively establish sexual intent beyond reasonable doubt.
17 apeal-382-2020.odt
The surrounding circumstances, omissions and contradictions render the
prosecution version unsafe for sustaining conviction.
32. The cumulative effect of the above deficiencies, namely, non-
examination of a material eye-witness, absence of independent witnesses
despite availability, failure to prove the spot of occurrence and lack of
convincing proof of sexual intent, creates serious doubt about the
prosecution case. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that if
two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be
adopted.
33. Upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is
of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of
the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under
Sections 354, 354-A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the
POCSO Act.
34. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are not sustainable
in law and are liable to be set aside. The appellant is therefore entitled to
the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the following order:
18 apeal-382-2020.odt
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal is Allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Darwha in Special Case (POCSO) No.
12/2016 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections
354, 354-A and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO
Act.
(iv) Bail bond of the appellant stands discharged. Fine, if any, paid by
the appellant be refunded to him.
(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.)
M.P.Deshpande
Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/12/2025 16:51:55
