Vikram @ Sanny Devisingh Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3592 Bom

Bombay High Court

Vikram @ Sanny Devisingh Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ... on 9 April, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:5597-DB




                                                      1                  4-APEAL 240-24.odt

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.240/2024
              Vikram @ Sanny Devisingh Thakur,
              aged about 28 Years, Occup.Labour
              R/o Nangpura, Murri,Gondia, Tah. And
              Dist. Gondia.                                             Appellant
                       - Versus -
              1.    State of Maharashtra,
                    through Police Station Officer,
                    Police Station Gondia, District Gondia.
              2.    X.Y.Z. Victim
                    through, Police Station Gondia, Dist.Gondia.
                                                                   Respondents

                                       -----------------
              Mr.A.P.Raghute, Advocate for the Appellant.
              Mr.U.R.Phasate, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
              Mr.Syed Salman Ali, Advocate (appointed)            for    Respondent
              No.2/Victim.
                                       ----------------
              CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
              DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT:   26.02.2026.
              DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 09.04.2026.

               JUDGMENT:

-

1) This is an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (henceforth referred to as "Cr.P.C." for short)

against the Judgment and Order dated 21/02/2024, passed by the 2 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

learned Special Judge, Gondia in Special Case No.11/2017

convicting and sentencing the Appellant as follows:-

1. The accused Vikram @ Sanny S/o Devisingh Thakur, aged 27 years, R/o- Nangpura Murri, Gondia, Tahsil and District Gondia is found guilty for the offence under Section 375 Class (a) punishable under Section 376(2)(i) (n) of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(a) punishable under Section 4, Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6, Section 7 punishable under Section 8 and Section 9(m) punishable under Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, vide Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The accused Vikram @ Sanny S/o Devisingh Thakur is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, vide Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal undergo rigorous Procedure and sentenced imprisonment for Ten Years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rs. One thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for Three Months.

3. The accused Vikram @ Sanny S/o Devisingh Thakur is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, vide Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Five Years with fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand). In default of payınent of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for Three Months.

4. No separate sentence is inflicted upon the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) (n) of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

5. The substantive sentence shall run concurrently vide Section 31 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

3 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

6. The period of inquiry, investigation and trial undergone by the accused Vikram @ Sanny S/o Devisingh Thakur since 15.12.2016 till 08.11.2017 be set off vide Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. The accused to surrender his bail bonds.

8). ...........

9) ..........

10) ..........

2) The prosecution's case, as revealed from the police report, is

as under:-

a] The Informant was residing at the given address along with

her family comprising husband, Victim aged Six (6) years and Six

(6) months and son aged Three (3) years. Her husband was in the

business of selling bags. They were residing on the ground floor. On

the 2nd and 3rd floor of the building her brother-in-law was running

the plant of manufacturing the bags. Four (4) to five (5) workers

were engaged in the said manufacturing unit. The Appellant was one

of the employee working in the said manufacturing unit. On 11 th

December 2016, the Informant's mother came to her house. On 12 th

December 2016, the Informant's husband went to Nagpur for work.

The Informant, her mother and her children were at home. The

Informant's mother took bath and washed her clothes and asked the

Victim to put her clothes for drying on the 2 nd floor. The Victim 4 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

refused to go upstairs. The Informant's mother asked the Victim,

reason for the same. The Victim told that, the Appellant was a bad

person and in last Fifteen (15) days, the Appellant sexually molested

her two (2) to three (3) times in the toilet on the upper floor. The

Victim informed that, she was having trouble in urinating. After the

Informant's husband returned, the report was lodged with the

Gondia Police Station against the Appellant and the Crime bearing

No.241 of 2016 came to be registered for the offence punishable

under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short

IPC) and for the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short

POCSO).

b] The Victim was referred for medical examination. The spot

panchnama was drawn. The Appellant came to be arrested. The

Appellant was referred for medical examination. Statement of the

witnesses were recorded. The articles were seized and sent for

examination to the Chemical laboratory. The documents in respect

of birth of the Victim came to be collected. On completion of the

investigation, the Charge-sheet came to be submitted.

3) The learned Trial Court framed the Charge against the

Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) of 5 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short IPC) and for the offence

punishable under Sections 4,6,8 and 10 of the POCSO Act below

Exh.16. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4) To prove the Charge, the prosecution examined the

mother of the Victim as PW-1, the Victim as PW-2, the Spot panch as

PW-3, the Medical Officer, who examined the Victim as PW-4, the

Policeman, who did the video recording during the spot panchnama

as PW-5, the Registrar for birth and death as PW-6 and the

Investigating Officer as PW-7. The relevant documents are brought

on record in the evidence of the witnesses. After the prosecution

filed the evidence closure pursis, the statement of the Appellant

came to be recorded under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Cr.P. C. The

Appellant stated that, he was falsely implicated due to quarrel

between two brothers. Appreciating the evidence on record, the

learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order.

5) Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the learned

APP and the learned Advocate for the Victim. Scrutinised the

evidence on record.

a] It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant

that, there was no dispute in respect of age of the Victim. To evict

the industrial undertaking from the building, which was being run 6 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

by the brother-in-law of the Informant, false report was lodged.

There was delay in lodging the report. When there were dispute

between two brothers, it was not likely that, the Victim would go

upstairs. Though there was manufacturing unit, strangely no one

noticed the incident. The spot of the incident was shown by the

nephew of the Informant. The medical evidence do not corroborate

the prosecution's case. There was no final opinion by the medical

officer. The prosecution failed to prove the fundamental facts of the

case and therefore, the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO

will not come into operation. In support of his submissions, he

relied on Six (6) judgments; in Mariappan Vs. The Inspector of

Police of Madras High Court in Criminal M.P.(MD) no.1396 of 2023

dated 08.09.2023, in Gautam Chandrakan Kharnar vs. State of

Maharashtra and anr. (Criminal Appeal No.508 of 2015) of this

Court Bench at Aurangabad, in Sagar Dinanath Jadhav Vs. State of

Maharashtra (2018)Cr.L.J.,4271, in Deelip Tatoba Raje Vs. State of

Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.990 of 2019 of Bombay High

Court, in Bagari Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Telangana in Criminal

Appeal No. 88 of 2024 of Telangana High Court and in Dashwanth

Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2025) 10 SCR 587.

7 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

b] It is submitted by the learned APP that, there was credible

evidence of the Victim and her mother to prove the Charge. As the

Victim was in the hospital, the spot was shown by the relative of the

Informant. The argument made by the learned Advocate for the

Appellant that, why the Informant would allow the Victim to go

upstairs when there was dispute is misplaced. Why the Victim would

go to such an extent to implicate the Appellant falsely, who was the

employee of her uncle. The sole testimony of the Victim can be

relied. The delay in reporting the incident to the Police was

explained by the Informant. No suggestions are given to dislodge the

case of the prosecution. The totality of the evidence on record go to

show that, the Charge was proved and it was not the case having

reasonable doubt. The Appeal be dismissed.

c] It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Victim that,

the Victim was a small girl. She deposed about the incident before

the learned Trial Court. There was no material cross-examination.

Even, the touch to the private part was sufficient to attract the

offence of POCSO. The delay in reporting the incident to the Police

was explained. No interference was called for in the conviction and

sentence. Hence, the Appeal be dismissed.

8 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

6) When the Charge is for the Penal section under the

POCSO, it becomes necessary for the prosecution to establish that,

the Victim was the child as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO

Act i.e. below the age of 18 years. To prove that, the Victim was the

child at the time of incident, prosecution examined PW-6 Jitendra

Laxmanda Vaishnav, who was working as the Registrar with the

concerned office from 2019. He brought with him the original

register with true copies, which were at Exh.42. The entry of birth

of the Victim was at Serial No. 59/59 and the date of birth was

02.01.2010. He deposed that, the birth certificate at Exh.24 bears his

signature and the contents therein were as per the original register.

Nothing has come in his cross-examination to discard his testimony.

He denied the suggestions that, no report of birth of Victim was

received from the Chaudhary Nursing Home and he recorded the

wrong date of birth.

7) PW-1 - Vaishali Bawankar is mother of the Victim. She is

also the Informant. She deposed that, the Victim's date of birth was

02.01.2010. The Victim was born in the Chaudhary Nursing Home,

Gondia. Her evidence shows that, the original birth certificate of the

Victim was submitted in the school and she again applied to the

Municipal Council for issuing the birth certificate, which was at 9 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

Exh.24. The said Exh.24 bears the date of birth, name of the Victim,

name of the parents and address. There is no challenge in the cross-

examination to the evidence of the PW-1 in respect of the date of

birth and birth certificate of the Victim.

8) The above evidence on record clearly establishes the date of

birth of the Victim as 02.01.2010. Nothing has come in the cross-

examination of the witnesses so as to create any dent in the evidence

in respect of the date of birth of the Victim. Even the learned

Advocate for the Appellant submitted that, there was no dispute

that, the Victim was the child at the relevant time. Thus, the

prosecution proved that, the Victim was the child.

9) The prosecution's case largely rests on the testimony of the

Victim who is examined as PW-2. Her evidence shows that, she was

studying in the 5th standard and residing with her parents and

brother and was studying in the first standard at the time of

incident. She knew the Appellant as he was working in the factory

of her Bade papa (elder brother of father), which was on the upper

floor of the building. She used to go on the upper floor for giving

water. When she used to go to the upper floor for giving water, the

Appellant used to take her to the latrine, remove his clothes, also her

clothes, make her to lie down. The Appellant used to give his 10 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

private part in her mouth and also used to put his penis in her

vagina. The Appellant used to give her threats to beat till she bleeds

and to throw in the tank, if she disclosed the incident to anyone.

She further deposed that, her grandmother had come to their house

and asked her to go upstairs to dry the clothes, but she refused to go

upstairs and told the reason for the same. Her mother lodged the

report with the Police. The police enquired with her. She was sent

for medical examination.

10) The cross-examination of the Victim shows that, she did

not remember whether, she had stated in her statement that, the

Appellant used to threaten her of beating and throwing in the tank if

she disclosed the incident to anyone and that she used to go to the

upper floor for giving water. She did not remember whether, there

was any bleeding from her place of urination when the accused

raped her. Further, the employees did not notice when the Appellant

used to take her on the upper floor. There used to be five (5) to six

(6)workers.

11) The evaluation of the Victim's testimony shows that, though

she deposed of rape and oral sex on her by the Appellant, it is

strange that, she did not remember as to whether there was bleeding

when the Appellant committed rape on her. The evidence of Victim 11 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

shows that, the spot of the incident was the toilet on the upper floor.

The prosecution examined the spot panch as PW-3 Baliram Dhanuji

Bhendarkar. His evidence shows that, the spot panchnama below

Exh.28 was prepared in his presence by the Police Officer. The size of

the toilet shown in the spot panchnama was 5 ft X 34 inch. It is

strange as to how, the act deposed by the Victim committed by the

Appellant on her was possible in such a small place. These aspect

shows improbability in the evidence of the Victim. The evidence of

PW-4 Dr. Rashmi S.Solnki shows that, he was the Assistant Professor,

Gynecologist and resident doctor at the Government Hospital,

Gondia. On 15.12.2016, the Victim was brought to her for

examination. She examined the Victim and found labia majora and

labia minora were normal. Clitoris was normal. Fourchtte and

introitus vagina were normal. The hymen was intact. There was no

evidence of perineal tear. There were no injuries to the genitals . She

gave the opinion that, the evidence of sexual intercourse/assault

cannot be ruled out, but final opinion was kept pending till receipt

of FSL report. The medical examination report prepared by PW-4 Dr.

Rashmi Solnki, is at Exh.36. It corroborate her testimony. The cross-

examination shows that, on medical examination genital and oral

cavity was normal. If FSL report was shown, she can try to give her 12 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

final opinion. The evidence of this Medical Officer shows that, there

was no final opinion in respect of sexual intercourse/assault.

Nothing has come in the medical evidence so as to corroborate the

testimony of the Victim in respect of penetrative sexual assault. It is

strange that, the nature of sexual assault as deposed by the Victim,

did not find support from the medical evidence.

12) The evidence of Victim's mother, who is examined as PW-1

shows that, her elder brother-in-law was residing on the ground

floor in the adjoining building and second brother-in-law was

residing on the first floor of the building where, she was residing

with her family. Her evidence shows that, their business were

separate from 2015 and there was dispute in respect of partition

between her husband and brother-in-law (Sevakram), who was

running manufacturing unit on the upper floor of the building where

they were residing. Her evidence shows that, their dispute persisted

from 2015 to 2017 and they were not on talking terms with

Sevakram. This evidence goes to show that, the relations between

the Victim's parents and her uncle who was running the

manufacturing unit, were not cordial. She admitted in her cross

examination that, few days after the incident, Sevakram i.e. brother-

in-law shifted his factory from their building to another place. The 13 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

suggestion is put that, to vacate the place from building, false report

was lodged against the employee of Sevakram. This evidence of the

Victim's mother, shows that, the defence put up in the cross-

examination was not improbable. In response to question No.19 in

the 313 (1)(b) statement, the Appellant stated that, due to the

quarrel between two brothers he was falsely implicated. Though the

Informant's evidence shows that, the Victim stated about the

incident to her and complained of pain while passing urine, she did

not take the Victim to the doctor.

13) PW-1 Victim's mother deposed that, the spot of the incident

was shown to the police by her. This evidence gets falsified from the

evidence of PW-7 Milind Navgire, the Investigating Officer, wherein

he deposed that, the spot of incident was shown by the Informant's

nephew namely, Nachiket Bawankar. The spot panchnama at Exh.28

corroborates the evidence of PW-7 the Investigating Officer that, the

spot was shown by the nephew of the Informant. There is no

evidence to show that, as to how the nephew of the Informant knew

the spot of the incident. Further evidence of PW-7, the Investigating

Officer, shows that, at the time of spot panchnama, neither the

Victim nor the Informant was present on the spot. This evidence on

record shows exaggeration by Victim's mother.

14 4-APEAL 240-24.odt

14) The above discussed evidence on record, do not show that,

the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is concrete.

Though the Victim deposed of the rape on her by the Appellant, the

same is required to be seen with doubt in the light of evidence in

respect of the place of occurrence. The Victim's testimony do not

give the required assurance that, the Appellant committed the act of

rape. The medical evidence is far from supporting the Victim's

version. The opinion of the medical officer was provisional and not

final. The relations between the Victim's family, and the owner of the

manufacturing unit which was being run on the upper floor of the

building and where the Appellant was working were not cordial.

Soon before the First Information Report, the manufacturing unit

was shifted. All these aspects create reasonable doubt about the

prosecution's case and makes defence probable. The evidence on

record lacks credibility and it is not possible to maintain the

conviction and sentence. The benefit goes to the Appellant. The

judgments cited by the learned Advocate for the Appellant are on

the facts and circumstances of the respective cases. There is no need

to burden this judgment by discussing the said judgments. The

Appeal succeeds. Hence the following order.

                        ORDER
                                                                      15                   4-APEAL 240-24.odt

                            i)        The Criminal Appeal is allowed
                            ii)       The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special

Judge-Gondia in Special Case No.11/2017 against the Appellant is quashed and set aside.

iii) The Appellant is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO.

iv) The Appellant is behind bars, he be released if not required in any other offence.

v) The fine amount if paid, be refunded to the Appellant.

vi) The Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Trial Court.

viii) Fees of the learned appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only). The same be paid accordingly by the High Court Legal Services Authority.

(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)

Kavita

Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/04/2026 13:07:15