Bombay High Court
Gautam Shivcharan Chauhan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 15 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:29271
903-Criappl-107-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
903 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.19 OF 2025
Gautam Shivcharan Chauhan,
Age: 25 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o. Walmik Nagar, Bhusawal,
Taluka - Bhusawal, District - Jalgaon .... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .... Respondents
.....
Mr. Patil Vijay Bhalerao, Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. M. K. Goyanka, APP for Respondent No.1
Ms. Suvarna Zaware, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2 - Victim
.....
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE : 15.10.2025
PER COURT :
1. This is an Application for suspension of substantive sentence
imposed upon the Applicant / Appellant by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, vide Judgment and Order dated
08/11/2024, passed in Special Case Child Protection No.15/2016, convicting
the Applicant / Appellant for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n)
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4(1) of the Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two (02) months.
Sameer/October-2025 1
903-Criappl-107-2025.odt
3. The case of Prosecution, in brief, is that, on 28/08/2015, the
Informant and the Victim had gone to attend the marriage ceremony, for
which, they got up early in the morning. The Victim-girl told the Informant
that, she would wait for her outside the house. When the Informant got ready
and came out of the house, she did not find the Victim. The Victim was not
traced despite search. The Informant lodged a missing report. On
25/09/2025, the Police traced the Victim along with the Applicant, and they
both were brought to the Bhusawal Police Station. On the statement of the
Victim, Crime came to be registered against the Applicant. After
Investigation, the Applicant was charge-sheeted, convicted and sentenced
after the trial.
4. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant, the learned APP
for Respondent No.1 - State and the learned Advocate Ms. Zaware for
Respondent No.2 - Victim. Perused the copies of evidence and the Judgment
made available.
5. According to the learned Advocate for the Applicant, the age of
Victim was above sixteen (16) years and was not proved as required under
the law. He submits that, the evidence on record clearly establishes that, the
Victim eloped with the Applicant and they had consensual relation. The
Applicant was on bail during the trial and being a term sentence, the sentence
be suspended and the Applicant be released on bail.
Sameer/October-2025 2
903-Criappl-107-2025.odt
6. The Application is opposed by the learned APP for Respondent
No.1 - State and the learned Advocate Ms. Zaware for Respondent No.2 -
Victim. They submit that, the Victim was a minor, and therefore, her consent
was immaterial. They submit that, the medical evidence supports the
evidence of the Victim. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 - Victim
relied on the Judgment in Jamnalal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, in
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.69/2025, wherein, the order of
suspension of sentence of the Appellant therein granted by the High Court
was quashed and set aside on the facts of that case. They submit that, the
Application be rejected.
7. As regard the age is concerned, the evidence is that of the
Informant, who is the mother of the Victim, and a copy of birth certificate is
brought on record. If the said evidence is accepted, the age of the Victim was
over sixteen (16) years of age. The learned Trial Court has recorded the clear
finding that, the relations between the Victim and the Applicant were
consensual. Though the evidence of the Medical Officer, who examined the
Victim, shows that, the hymen was ruptured and old hymenal tag was
present, her evidence indicates that there were no external injuries on the
Victim. Her evidence further shows that, the Victim stated before her that, no
intercourse took place during that period when she was residing with the
Applicant at Delhi. This evidence goes contrary to the evidence of the
Victim, wherein, she deposed of forceful sexual intercourse by the Applicant
Sameer/October-2025 3
903-Criappl-107-2025.odt
with her. Therefore, it is clear that, the evidence of the Victim does not find
corroboration. The sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is the term
sentence of ten (10) years. The Applicant was on bail during trial. He is
behind the bars for a period little over one (01) year. The Record and
Proceeding and Paper-book is awaited, and therefore, the Appeal is not likely
to be heard finally in the near future. Hence, I am inclined to pass the
following order:
ORDER
[I] Criminal Application is allowed.
[II] The substantive sentence imposed upon the Applicant, namely, Gautam
Shivcharan Chauhan, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, vide Judgment and Order dated
08/11/2024, passed in Special Case Child Protection No.15/2016, is
hereby suspended till the final disposal of the Appeal.
[III] The Applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of
Rs.15,000/- [Rupees Fifteen Thousand] with one surety in the like
amount.
[IV] The Applicant shall co-operate in early disposal of the Appeal.
[V] Bail before the Trial Court.
[VI] For this Application, fees of the learned Advocate Ms. Suvarna Zaware
appointed to represent Respondent No. 2 / Victim is quantified at
Rs.15,000/- [Rupees Fifteen Thousand], which shall be paid by the
High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.
[VII] Criminal Application stands disposed off accordingly.
Signed by: Md. Sameer Q. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 15/10/2025 18:44:00
