Ramdas Bhaskar Bhoye vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 7485 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ramdas Bhaskar Bhoye vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 November, 2025

2025:BHC-AS:48888

               S.S.Kilaje                                                          28-IA-3136-25.doc

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. NO. 3136 OF 2025
                                                    IN
                                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 711 OF 2024

                        Ramdas Bhaskar Bhoye                                       ... Applicant/
                                                                                     Appellant
                                 Versus
                        State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                ... Respondents

                                               ..............
                       Mr. Shravan Giri a/w. Mr. Sachin Gosai, Advocate for the
                        Applicant/Appellant.
                       Mr. M.S.Sonavane, Advocate for the Respondent-State.
                       Ms. Aishwaya Sharma (Appointed Advocate) for Respondent No.2.


                                                      CORAM    : R. M. JOSHI, J.

                                                      DATED    : 13th NOVEMBER, 2025.

               P.C. :

1. This application is for suspension of sentence and enlargement of

the appellant on bail in connection with the Judgment and Order dated

30.04.2024 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 99 of 2022 whereby the

appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 20 years with

fine.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that here in this case

neither victim nor her parents have supported the case of the prosecution

as they turned hostile, there would be no justification to sustain the

S.S.Kilaje 28-IA-3136-25.doc

conviction merely on the basis of evidence of DNA report. It is his

submission that the conviction on DNA report without any corroborative

evidence would not be sustainable in view of the following judgments :

(i) Suresh s/o. Devidas Malche Vs. The State of Maharashtra1

(ii) Pattu Rajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu2

(iii) Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.3

(iv) State of Karnataka Vs. Nagesh s/o. Shivappa Mossannavar 4

(v) Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.5

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned APP opposed

the application by contending that even thought he witnesses are declared

hostile, their entire evidence cannot not be discarded. It is argued that the

mother of the victim and father have admitted the statements made by

them before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. It is their

submission that not only those recording of statements has been accepted

but the statements made before the Magistrate are also accepted to be

corrected. It is their submission that the defence has admitted the victim

to be minor and in such circumstances the DNA report which conclusively

connects the present appellant to the crime is sufficient to prima facie

1 2023 ALL MR (CR.) 1334 2 AIR 2019 SCC 1674 3 2005 AIR SCW 2215 4 2025 KHC-D-8847-DB 5 2009 CRI L.J. 2888

S.S.Kilaje 28-IA-3136-25.doc

accept the conviction recorded against him to be proper. It is argued that

merely for the reason that the compromise took place between the parties,

the appellant would not be entitled for bail.

4. At the outset it needs to be recorded that at this stage, the Court is

not expected to find faults or lacunas in the Judgment impugned and the

exercise of minute consideration of evidence could be undertaken at the

time of final hearing of the Appeal. Here in this case, there is no dispute

about the fact that the victim was minor and she was impregnated. There

is evidence on record to show that the DNA report proves accused to be the

person who impregnated the victim. This is not the case of love affair. The

case of the appellant is of total denial. In such circumstances, at this stage

this Court is required to see whether there is any evidence to support the

DNA report.

5. As rightly pointed out by the learned APP and learned counsel for

respondent No.2 that the entire evidence of the hostile witnesses cannot be

discarded totally. It is pertinent to note that the hostile witnesses admitted

recording of statement before the Magistrate under Section 164. Not only

the recording of the statement has accepted but also the statement

precisely made before the Magistrate is accepted to be told to the

Magistrate. Thus this is not the case wherein it is absolutely no evidence

on record to corroborate the evidence of DNA report. In respectful view

S.S.Kilaje 28-IA-3136-25.doc

of this Court judgments cited supra on behalf of the applicant though could

be considered during final hearing of appeal, would not help applicant is

succeeding in application for suspension of sentence. This Court,

therefore, finds no reason or justification to accept the contention of the

learned counsel for the appellant at this stage. Having regard to the afore-

stated facts, this is not the case wherein the appellant is entitled for

enlargement on bail by suspending substantive sentence.

6. Hence application stands rejected.

7. The above observations are prima facie in nature and would not

come in way of either side during final hearing of appeal.

8. Appeal stands expedited.

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

SONALI by SONALI

SATISH Date:

2025.11.14 KILAJE 17:11:41 +0700