Bombay High Court

Vikas Shankar Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 25 July, 2025

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal

2025:BHC-AS:32056

:1: 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1407 OF 2023

Vikas Shankar Chavan .....Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra
and others .... Respondents
-----
Mr. Niranjan Bhavake, Advocate a/w. Drishti Madhani,
Swamini Thakur, Anurag Ramekar i/b. Sushant Tayade for
the Appellant.
Mr. Pankaj P. Devkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr.A.A. Jadhavar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (appointed
through Legal Aid)
Ms. Suvarna Yadav,Advocate for Respondent No.3
(appointed through Legal Aid)
-----

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 25th JULY, 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellant was the original accused in Special

Case [POCSO] No.286/2016 before the learned Special

Judge, POCSO Act, Thane. The learned Judge, vide the

judgment and order dated 25.9.2023 convicted him for

commission of the offence punishable under Section 354-A

of IPC and under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Protection of

1 of 21

PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE DESHMANE Date:

2025.07.30 15:30:49 +0530

Deshmane(PS)

:2: 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

Children From Sexual Offences Act (for short, 'POCSO Act').

The Appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and

to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer SI for

100 days for commission of the offence punishable under

Section 10 of the POCSO Act. In view of this sentence, no

separate sentence was imposed under Section 354-A of IPC

and under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. He was also

convicted for commission of the offence punishable under

Section 342 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer RI for six

months. He was further convicted for commission of the

offence punishable under Section 506 (II) of IPC and was

sentenced to suffer RI for three years. All the sentences were

directed to run concurrently. The Appellant was in jail from

25.8.2016 till he was released on bail pending trial on

15.5.2017. For that period he was granted set off under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C.. After his conviction on 25.9.2023, he

was again taken into custody and since then he is in in the

prison. Thus, he has already undergone substantial part of

his sentence.

2 of 21

:3: 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

2. Heard Mr. Niranjan Bhavake, learned counsel for

the Appellant, Mr. Pankaj Devkar, learned APP for the

Respondent No.1-State, Mr.A.A. Jadhavar, learned appointed

advocate for the Respondent No.2 and Ms. Suvarna Yadav,

learned appointed Advocate for the Respondent No.3.

3. The prosecution case is that the Applicant was a

watchman in a school. The incident took place on

22.8.2016. There were two girls and one boy who are the

victims in this case. The prosecution case is that the victim

girls were taken by the Appellant to his room. They were

shown pornography videos. He touched them

inappropriately on their private parts. The girls somehow

got themselves released and escaped from his clutches. They

did not tell anybody about this incident immediately but on

the next day they informed this incident to their teachers

and to their parents. On the same day when this incident

took place, the Appellant had shown an obscene video to the

other victim boy. Based on these allegations, the FIR was

lodged against the Appellant. The investigation was carried

3 of 21

:4: 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

out and at the conclusion of the investigation, the case was

committed before the Special Court under the POCSO Act.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined

eleven witnesses including one of the victim girls, the victim

boy, the mothers of both the victims, the panchas, the

Security Supervisor and the investigating officer. The

defence of the Appellant was of total denial. According to

him, though he was present in the school on that date, a

false case was filed against him. He has not committed such

an act. He also had two daughters meaning thereby that he

would not commit such offence. The CCTV footage was not

seen by the police and he was falsely implicated.

5. The learned Judge considered the defence of the

Appellant and heard the arguments. The learned Judge

reached the conclusion of guilt as mentioned earlier and

convicted and sentenced the Appellant as above. She relied

on the evidence of the victims and the school teachers.





                                                                      4 of 21





                                :5:                   904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

6. PW-2 was one of the victims. She is an important

witness. The other victim had passed away during pendency

of the trial. Therefore, she could not be examined, but, her

mother gave evidence.

7. PW-2 deposed that her date of birth was

11.11.2006. In the year 2016, she was staying with her

mother at her mother's parents' house at Kopri. She was

studying in the 5th standard in the Municipal Corporation

School at Kopri. Her school timings were 12.30 noon to

5.30 p.m.. Her mother used to drop her to school and bring

her back every day. On 22.8.2016, it was a Monday in the

month of Shravan and, therefore, the school timing was from

11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.. On that day, her grand-father was

admitted in the hospital as he had suffered a heart-attack.

Her mother had gone to the Hospital and, therefore, she had

gone to the school with the other victim girl. The Appellant

was the watchman in the school. Their school was on the

first floor. On that day, she herself and the other victim girl

were climbing the steps of the staircase in their school to go

5 of 21

:6: 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

to the classroom. The Appellant came there. He pressed

their mouths and took both of them to the watchman's room

towards the gate of their school. He then latched the door of

the room from inside and made both of them sleep on the

floor. He showed dirty photos and videos on his mobile

phone. They were obscene in nature. He asked the victims

to take off their clothes but they did not listen to him. He

then removed the petticoats worn by both of them.

According to PW-2, the Appellant then inserted his hand

inside their clothes and touched their private parts. He then

tried to take photographs. While doing so, he had turned

his back towards them. Both the victims decided to pull him

with his legs and after he fell, to hit on his head by an iron

pipe lying there. According to their plan, PW-2 pulled his

legs and the other girl hit him on his head with the iron pipe.

Both of them ran away and went to their class room. They

kept their bags and went for the prayer. That day, they did

not tell this incident to anybody in the school, but according

to her, both of them were scared. On the next day evening,

6 of 21

:7: 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

she told the incident to her mother. On 23.8.2016 the

Appellant approached them outside a public toilet and

threatened them that they should not tell this incident to

anyone. PW-2 told this incident to her mother. Both of them

went to meet the Principal and narrated the incident. She

suggested that they should lodge a complaint. The Principal

called the Appellant and the other teachers and informed

them about what PW-2 had told them. The next day, PW-1

went to the police station and gave her complaint. According

to the victim, on 24.8.2016 also the Appellant had gone near

the house of the other victim and had threatened her. PW-2

identified the Appellant before the Court.

In her cross-examination, she accepted that it

was already 11.00 a.m. on that day and it was the time of

opening of the school and that the other students were

coming from the gate of the school. She added that there

was no one else on the staircase at that time. She further

admitted that the watchman's room was very near to the

gate from where the students entered the school and it was

7 of 21

:8: 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

visible. If anybody gave a shout from inside it was audible

outside. She answered that they could not shout because

their mouths were pressed by the Appellant. The mobile

phone used by the Appellant was a smartphone. She further

improved her version and stated in her cross-examination

that on the date of the incident itself she had narrated the

incident to a teacher during the recess.

8. PW-1 was the mother of PW-2 and had lodged

the FIR. She deposed that her father was admitted in the

hospital for operation and, therefore, her daughter and the

other victim girl had gone to the school together on the date

of the incident. On 24.8.2016 PW-1, PW-2 and her friend

discussed something. On her enquiry, they narrated the

incident which is deposed by PW-2. She went to the school

with both the victims and met the teachers. She informed

them about the incident. The teacher called the

headmistress, who in turn called the Appellant and

questioned him. Though the school teachers were of the

opinion that the FIR may not be lodged as it would cause

8 of 21

:9: 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

defamation of the school, the headmistress scolded the

Appellant. They then returned home. On the next day i.e. on

25.8.2016, PW-1 went to the police station and lodged her

FIR. It was taken on record at Exhibit-38.

In her cross-examination, she admitted that there

was a girl's hostel in front of PW-2's school. The watchman's

cabin was near the gate of the school and that gate was

opposite the girl's hostel. She further admitted that there

were CCTVs at the gate of the school as well as at the gate of

the hostel, but, she could not state whether those cameras

were working on the date of the incident. According to her,

since they were scared because of the Appellant's threat to

the girls; they had not gone to the police station to lodge the

FIR on the same day. The FIR was registered at Kopri police

station vide C.R. No.79/2016.

9. PW-4 was the mother of the other victim girl.

She deposed that on the date of the incident, the other

victim girl was ten years of age and was studying in the 5 th

standard. On 22.8.2016 both the victims had gone to the 9 of 21

: 10 : 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

school with PW-4's other daughter. On 23.8.2016 PW-1

informed her about the incident. PW-4 also joined PW-1 in

meeting the teachers. Her daughter narrated the incident to

her. She further deposed that, after the incident, her

daughter was not keeping good health. She was under

trauma. She was not going to school. She used to have fever

and she passed away within seven to eight months of the

incident.

In the cross-examination, she deposed that she

was in a position to bring the medical record of the sickness

of her daughter leading to her death. She denied the

suggestion that her daughter was having a hole in her heart

because of which she had passed away. She admitted that at

11.00 a.m. it was the time when the school started. The

students and the parents used to be near the gate of the

school and the watchman's room.

10. PW-6 Alpita Tandel was the headmistress of the

school. She deposed that the Appellant was one of the

watchmen. On 22.8.2016, the school timing was 11.00 a.m. 10 of 21

: 11 : 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

to 2.30 p.m.. On 23.8.2016 at about 8.00 p.m. she had a

telephonic conversation with another teacher regarding

some other work. At that time, the said teacher Sawant

informed PW-6 about the incident. Therefore, though PW-6

was not to attend the school on the next day she went to the

school and met the victims and their parents. PW-6 was told

about the incident. PW-6 called the Appellant who was on

duty. The Appellant denied that incident. PW-6 then called

the Supervisor under whom the watchman was employed.

The Supervisor also questioned the Appellant. PW-6 then

advised the victims' parents to lodge the FIR. She produced

the extracts of the general registers regarding the school

records of both the victims. Those extracts were produced on

record at Exhibits-54 and 55.

In the cross-examination she admitted that she

did not have personal information about the incident.

11. PW-7 Ganesh Shinde was the Security Supervisor

of the watchmen in that school. There were two more

watchmen working in that school apart from the Appellant.

                                                                    11 of 21





                                : 12 :                  904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

They were working in three shifts of eight hours each. On

24.8.2016, the Principal i.e. PW-6 called him to the school.

She asked him to bring the Appellant with him. Accordingly

both of them went to the school. The victims made

allegations against the Appellant of showing obscene videos

from his phone. The Appellant denied those allegations.

12. PW-8 'M', another victim, was studying in the 8 th

standard. He deposed that on 22.8.2016 he had gone to the

school with his brother and sister. His sister went to attend

her class. He was sitting on the bench near the watchman's

room inside the gate of their school. His brother was sitting

on the next table. The Appellant came near PW-8 and

showed some obscene photographs. By that time the

teachers came there and the watchman went away.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that it was

the time when the school was about to start. The other

students were entering the school from the gate and the

watchman's cabin was near the place where he was sitting

12 of 21

: 13 : 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

on a bench. He admitted that he did not narrate that

incident to the teachers who had come there shortly.

13. PW-3 Hemant Patil was examined as a pancha for

the spot panchnama but he turned hostile and did not

support the prosecution case.

14. PW-5 Nirmala Kapadne was working as a Primary

Teacher in that school. She produced the extracts of the

entry regarding the dates of birth of both the victims. Their

dates of birth were 11.11.2006 and 20.12.2006. On

22.8.2016 she did not learn anything about the incident. On

the next day i.e. on 23.8.2016 the victims approached the

teachers and told them that the watchman had shown them

dirty photographs. The teachers then informed the

headmistress.

15. PW-9 Prashant Patil was a pancha for the arrest

of the Appellant and the seizure of mobile phone from him.

He deposed that he was called by the police at Kopri police

station for panchnama on 25.8.2016. The Appellant was

13 of 21

: 14 : 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

present in the police station. The police took his search and

seized one mobile phone of Micromax company with two

sim cards. There were some obscene videos in the mobile

phone. Its battery, SIM cards and memory cards were

removed and were kept in different packets. The packets are

produced on record at Exhibit-65.

16. PW-10 Aktar Alluddin was a pancha for the spot

panchnama. He described the watchman's room. It was a

small room on one side of the gate. There was a staircase to

go upwards. The room was having a ceiling fan, a small table

and a chair. On one side there was a window with grill and

shutter. The panchnama is produced on record at Exhibit-69.

17. PW-11 PI Jadhav was the investigating officer. He

has deposed about the investigation carried out by him. He

stated that he prepared the spot panchnama in the presence

of two panchas. On 25.8.2016 his team arrested the

Appellant and produced him in the police station. A mobile

phone was seized from the Appellant. There were obscene

videos in the mobile phone. The investigation was carried 14 of 21

: 15 : 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

out and it was revealed that the SIM card was in the name of

the Appellant. He ascertained from the attendance register

that the two victim girls and the victim boy had attended the

school on that date. He had sent the mobile phone for

Forensic Analysis. He also collected the attendance sheet of

the Appellant to show that the Appellant had also attended

the school on that day. The victim's statement was recorded

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C..

In the cross-examination, he stated that he did

not see any CCTV camera installed in the school.

The C.A. report was produced on record vide

Exhibit-78. It shows that the memory card of the phone

contained videos related to the present case.

. This, in short, is the evidence led by the

prosecution.

18. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that

the Appellant is falsely implicated. The case is false. It was

not possible that the incident could have taken place as is

15 of 21

: 16 : 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

described by the victims. It was not possible to drag those

victims from the staircase to the watchman's cabin. The

evidence shows that it was the time when the school starts

and there was presence of other students in the premises.

He submitted that the seizure of the phone is not properly

proved. The Appellant had no reason to show any such

videos the victim girls and then repeat the same act with the

victim boy PW-8. The police did not deliberately collect the

CCTV footage. In fact, the Investigating Officer deposed that

there were no CCTV cameras installed in that area. However,

that is contrary to the evidence of PW-1, who had admitted

that there were CCTV cameras at the gate of the school as

well as at the gate of the girls hostel. He, therefore,

submitted that the Appellant deserves to be acquitted.

19. Learned counsel for the Respondents and the

learned APP submitted that there was no reason for those

young girls and the boy to depose against the Appellant to

implicate him falsely. The other victim had lost her life and,

therefore, that fact may be taken into consideration. It was

16 of 21

: 17 : 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

not impossible for the Appellant to have pulled those girls to

his cabin. Therefore, according to them, there was no force

in the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant in

that behalf.

20. I have considered these submissions. The

prosecution case rests mainly on the evidence of PW-2 and

PW-8. The other victim girl could not be examined as

unfortunately she had passed away. However, the

prosecution has not led any evidence that it was because of

this incident that she was suffering from such severe trauma

that she could not survive. There is absolutely no evidence

brought on record regarding how the other victim had died.

Therefore, the learned counsel for the Appellant is right in

submitting that the death of the other victim girl cannot be

considered in connection with the present case.

21. As far as the main incident is concerned,

according to PW-2, this incident had taken place at about

11.00 a.m. when the school was about to start. The

prosecution witnesses, as mentioned earlier, have admitted 17 of 21

: 18 : 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

that at 11.00 a.m. the school is about to start and there used

to be strong presence of the parents and the students near

the gate or in the school. The watchman's room was next to

the gate of the school and, therefore, it was very easy for

anyone to notice what was going on in and around the

watchman's room. The narration of the incident also does

not inspire confidence in the prosecution case. According to

PW-2, both of them were made to lie down and he had tried

to remove their clothes. Even at that stage, none of them

tried to flee from there or raise alarm. The Appellant did not

have any weapon with him and he could not have gagged

their mouths inside the room while removing their clothes at

the same time. There is evidence to show that there was a

window to the said room and if anybody shouted from that

room it was quite audible to the outside world. This was a

time of heavy presence of the students in the school. It

becomes very difficult to believe that such an incident would

have taken place without anyone noticing it at all. The

conduct of the victims after the incident shows that they had

18 of 21

: 19 : 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

attended the school as on any other normal day. They had

not complained either to their teachers or even to their

friends. They had not even told about it to their parents. It

is only on the next day that they had told their parents and

then after that on the next day thereafter they had gone to

meet the Principal and the other teachers.

22. The evidence of PW-8 will also have to be

considered in its proper perspective. According to the

prosecution case, both these incidents had taken place on the

same day i.e. on 22.8.2016 at around the same time. It is

not clear from the prosecution evidence as to when exactly

the incident involving PW-8 had taken place; whether that

incident was prior or it was after the incident involving two

girls. That aspect is thus left unclear. If the incident

involving PW-8 had taken place earlier that means he was

present near the watchman's cabin but he had not seen those

two victims being taken to his cabin. If this particular

incident had taken place subsequent to the incident

involving the two victim girls then also it is difficult to

19 of 21

: 20 : 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt

believe both these incidents because in that case the

Appellant was already hit on his head by an iron rod and the

girls had escaped from the room. In that situation, it is

difficult to believe that the Appellant would go to another

boy who is sitting outside his cabin and would show some

videos.

23. Considering all this discussion, I find it difficult

to believe the prosecution case. In this case, the prosecution

has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to the

Appellant.

24. Hence, the following order :

:: O R D E R ::

i. The Appeal is allowed.

ii. The judgment and order 25.9.2023 passed by the

learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Thane in

Special Case (POCSO) No.286/2016, is set aside. The

Appellant is acquitted of all the charges.



                                                                           20 of 21





                                : 21 :                 904-APEAL-1407-23.odt