[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Chintu S/O Ramesh Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Wadi ... on 27 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:3431
1/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.176/2024
Chintu Ramesh Patil,
aged about 27 Years, Occup.Labour,
R/o Ramji Ambedkar Nagar
Zopadpatti, Eighth Mile, Nagpur
(Presently Central Prison at Nagpur).
Appellant
- Versus -
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Wadi,Nagpur. Respondent
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.177/2024
Imran Sheikh Rehaman Sheikh
aged about 21 Years, Occup.Labour,
R/o Ganesh Nagar Zopadpatti,
Eighth Mile, Wadi, Nagpur
(Presently Central Prison at Nagpur).
Appellant
- Versus -
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Wadi, Nagpur. Respondent
2/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.178/2024
Dinesh Govindrao Pawar,
aged about 27 Years, Occup.Labour,
R/o Plot No. 122, Hill Top Colony,
Eighth Mile, Nagpur
(Presently Central Prison at Nagpur). Appellant
- Versus -
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Wadi, Nagpur. Respondent
-----------------
Mr. C.R.Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant in Cri.Appeal No.176 of
2024 and in Cri.Appal No.177 of 2024.
Mr. A.V. Bobde Advocate h/f Ms. Shubhangi A. Jadhao with Adv.
A.G.Nandanpawar for the Appellant in Cri.Appeal No.178 of 2024
Ms. Sneha Dhote, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.
----------------
CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 28.01.2026.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 27.02.2026.
COMMON JUDGMENT:-
1) These Appeals are 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 01/03/2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special (POCSO) Case
3/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
No.60 of 2017, convicting and sentencing the Appellants as
follows :-:-
i) The accused No.1 Imran Sheikh Rehaman Sheikh, No.2
Chintu Ramesh Patil and No.3 Dinesh Govindrao Pawar
are hereby convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for
the offence punishable under Section 376-D of the
Indian Penal Code, for committing gang rape on the
victim girl 'P', arising out of Crime No. 21/2017
registered by Wadi Police Station, Nagpur and sentenced
to suffer R.I. for a period of 20 (Twenty) years each and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each I/d to suffer R.I. for six
month.
ii) The accused No.1 Imran Sheikh Rehaman Sheikh, No.2
Chintu Ramesh Patil and No.3 Dinesh Govindrao Pawar
are hereby convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for
the offence punishable under Section 354-A R/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for outraging
modesty of the victim girl 'P' and sentenced to suffer R.I.
for a period of 3 (Three) years each and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- each I/d to suffer R.1. for three month.
(iii) The accused Nos.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted under
Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C. from the offence
punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 for
want of proof of minority.
iv) ........
v) ........
vi) ........
vii) ........
viii) ........
ix) ........
x) ........
xi) ........
xii) ........
xiii) ........
xiv) ........
xv) ........
xvi) ........
4/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
2) The prosecution's case, as revealed from the police
report, is as under:-
a) The Victim was residing with her parents and siblings.
She was studying in the 10th Standard. She used to attend the
classes for ICT in the evening between 7.00 to 8.00. On 30 th
December 2016, while the Victim and her friends reached near the
Nala on the way to home at around 8.00 pm, the Appellants and the
Juvenile came on two different motorcycles. The Appellants and the
Juvenile started beating her friends. The Appellants- Imran and
Dinesh took the Victim towards the dilapidated wall. They both
raped her. Thereafter, the Appellant Chintu raped her. The
Appellants asked the Victim's friends to leave the spot and they
dropped the Victim at some distance from her house and threatened
her not to disclose the incident to her family members or else they
will kill her. Due to the threat, the Victim remained silent. After some
days, there was the programme in the Victim's school under the
banner 'Beti Bachao'. The girls were made aware of the sexual
assaults, good and bad touch etc.. At that point of time, the Victim
told her teacher about the incident which took place with her. She
also informed the incident to her friends. After that, the Victim
5/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
informed her mother about the incident. Initially, she did not
disclose the entire incident to her mother and told her that her
modesty was outraged. The Victim's mother lodged the report with
the concerned Police Station.
b) Due to the threat or fear, the Victim went to her native
place. After some days, the Victim came back to Nagpur. The Police
recorded her statement and she was referred for medical
examination. As the Appellants were uttering the names of each
others at the time of incident, she came to know their names. The
spot of the incident was shown by the Victim. The Appellants came
to be arrested and they were referred for medical examination. The
Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted in the jail, where the
Victim identified the Appellants as the rapist. The statement of the
witnesses were recorded. The necessary documents were collected.
On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be
filed.
c) The learned Trial Court framed the Charge against the
Appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 376-D, 354-A
r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), punishable under
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (for short POCSO) below Exh.35. The Appellants pleaded not
6/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the Charge, the prosecution
examined in all fifteen (15) witnesses and brought on record the
relevant documents. After the prosecution filed the evidence closer
pursis, the statement of the Appellants were recorded under Section
313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The Appellants stated that, the false case
was lodged against them. Appreciating the evidence on record, the
learned Trial Court, passed the impugned judgment and order
convicting and sentencing the Appellants as above.
3) It is submitted by the learned Advocates for the
Appellants that, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the Appellants
for the offence punishable under the POCSO. Though the incident
was dated 30th December 2016, the First Information Report (FIR)
was lodged on 23rd January 2017 and there was delay in reporting
the incident to the Police. When the Victim was present with her
mother, the Victim's statement was not recorded immediately. The
eye witnesses examined by the prosecution, did not support the case
of prosecution. The medical evidence do not support the
prosecution's case. The Victim did not inform the Police, who were
present at the 'Beti Bachao' programme at the School. Even the
teacher who learnt about the incident on 18.01.2017, did not bother
to inform the Police. The other teacher Mrs. Musale was not
7/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
examined. Had there been no 'Beti Bachao' programme in the
school, nothing would have come up. There are material lapses in
the prosecution's case. Though, the Victim deposed that, her head
was banged against the wall, there was no supporting medical
evidence. Initially, the Crime was registered for the offence
punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. The Chemical Analysis
(CA) reports were inconclusive. The learned Trial Court relied on
the evidence of the witnesses, who did not support the prosecution's
case. The prosecution's case was speculative. The conviction and
sentence be set aside and the Appellants be acquitted. The learned
Advocate appearing for the Appellants placed reliance on the
judgment in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) along with other connected matter reported in (2012)8 SCC
21 on the point of sterling witness.
4) It is submitted by the learned APP that, the Victim
deposed the incident and nothing had come in the cross examination
to show that, her testimony was inconsistent with her previous
statement. The Victim deposed that due to the threats, she did not
inform the incident immediately to her mother. The Victim was
candid in her evidence. The Victim's evidence explained the delay in
telling the entire incident to her mother. In such cases, the delay is
8/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
not fatal. The Victim identified the Appellants in the TIP. The
suggestions were denied. As there was delay in conducting the
medical examination of the Victim, there were no recent signs of
physical assault. The medical evidence corroborate the Victim's
testimony. It is nowhere the case of the Appellants that, they were
not capable of having sex. The conviction can be maintained on the
sole testimony of the Victim. The learned Trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the Appellants and there was no merit in
the Appeals and the same be dismissed.
5) Heard both the sides. Scrutinized the evidence available
on record. The evidence shows that PW-4 Jyoti Arvind Aadhaoo,
who was the class teacher of the Victim was recalled and after recall
she was referred as PW-7. Thus, PW-4 and PW-7 are not two
different witnesses but one and the same. Thus, the total witnesses
examined by the prosecution are fourteen (14). Out of fourteen (14)
witnesses, PW-3 Shubham Ramesh Jadhao, PW-10 Ujjwal Sanjay
Bhure, PW-11 Sonal Dinesh Shinde, PW-12 Neha Deepak Shinde and
PW-14 Bhojraj Dilip Sevatkar, who were the friends of the Victim did
not support the prosecution. Even the cross- examination by the
prosecution did not yield anything fruitful for the prosecution.
9/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
6) PW-1 informant is the mother of the Victim. There is no
dispute on this aspect. Her evidence shows that, she lodged the
report on 23rd January 2017 for the incident dated 30 th December
2016. Her evidence shows that, the Victim was frightened and she
did not tell her anything. After some days, the Victim informed her
that, her modesty was outraged by the Appellants and so she lodged
the report below Exh.42. Her evidence shows that, eight (8) days
thereafter, the Victim told her that, she was raped by the Appellants
on that day. Again, the Victim's mother went to the Police Station on
6th February 2017. The police enquired with the Victim. The Victim
was referred for medical examination. Her statement was also
recorded. Her cross examination shows that, they were native of
Chhattisgarh. She and the Victim were not knowing the Appellants
before the incident. The suggestion that, false report was lodged
was denied. This witness set the criminal law in motion. The
evidence of this witness goes to show that, on learning from the
Victim about the incident, she immediately approached the Police
and lodged the report and subsequently also, immediately
approached the Police when the Victim told her about the rape. The
evidence of this witness clearly goes to show that, there was no
10/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
delay in reporting the matter to the police after it came to her
knowledge.
7) The Victim is examined as PW-2. The Prosecution's case
largely rests on her testimony. Her evidence shows that, she was
studying in the 10th standard in the Drugdhamna high school,
Dawalameti. She used to attend the ICT classes in the evening
between 7.00 to 8.00. The incident was dated 30 th December 2016.
Around 8.00 p.m after the class, she along with above referred
witnesses (friends), who did not support the prosecution, was on her
way to search Bhojraj Sevatkar (PW-14). Bhojraj Sevatkar met them
near the Nala of Navneet Nagar. All her four (4) friends proceeded
with her to drop her at her house. On their way, the Appellant Imran
and Dinesh came on one motorcycle and the Appellant Chintu and
Akshay (Juvenile) came from Navneet Nagar side. The Appellants
and the Akshay, who had came with them started beating her
friends. There was one dilapidated wall of MSEB (Electricity Board).
The Appellants Imran and Dinesh took her towards the said
dilapidated wall. They removed her clothes. Appellant Imran kissed
her on lips. Appellant Imran raped her. Thereafter, Appellant Dinesh
raped her. Appellant Dinesh gave his private part in the mouth of
the Victim. Thereafter, Appellant Chintu raped her. The other person
11/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
Akshay touched her body parts and told her that, Appellant Imran
was 'Dada' and all listens to him and asked the Victim not to inform
the incident to her friends. He threatened the Victim with dire
consequences. The Appellants asked the Victim to put on the clothes
and accordingly, Victim put on her clothes and came near her
friends. The Appellants asked her friends to go home and told them
that, they will drop the Victim at her home. The Victim was dropped
at some distance from her house by the Appellants and gave threats
not to disclose the incident or else, she will be killed. The Victim
came home.
8) The Victim's evidence goes to show that, due to the
threatening by the Appellants, she did not inform the incident to
anyone at home. Her evidence further shows that, there was a
programme of 'Beti Bachav' (save the daughter) in her school, in
which the information in respect of the sexual assault was provided.
At that time, she informed about the incident to the teacher Mrs.
Musale and also to her friends. The sister of her friend Ujjawal told
the Victim to inform the incident to her family members. Thereafter,
the Victim disclosed the incident to her mother. The evidence shows
that, she did not inform about the complete incident to her mother
and informed that, her modesty was outraged. Her mother lodged
12/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
the report. On the next day, they went to their native place as she
thought that, she would come out of the fear. After some days, she
told the entire incident to her mother. They came to Nagpur and
went to the Police. The police recorded her statement. The police
referred her for the Medical examination. She gave the history to
the Doctor. The Doctor examined her. The doctor took her samples.
Her evidence shows that, as the assaulters were taking each others
name, at the time of the incident, she came to know their names.
She showed the spot of the incident to the Police. Her statement was
recorded before the learned Magistrate. The TIP was arranged in the
jail and she identified the Appellants in the TIP. She identified the
Appellants before the trial Court.
9) The Victim was subjected to the cross-examination. She
candidly admitted that, she did not inform the police about the rape
on 23.01.2017, when the report was lodged. It is clear from her
cross-examination that, the TIP was conducted after one month from
lodging the report.
10) The Victim's evidence clearly shows that, only after the
programme in the school, where information about the sexual
assault was given, she opened up and informed her teacher about
the incident. This is quite natural for the girl of her age. This gets
13/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
corroboration with the evidence of PW-4 Jyoti Adhaoo, who was the
teacher in the School where the Victim was studying. Her evidence
shows that, on 18.01.2017, there was a programme of 'Beti Bachav'
in the school in which the information regarding sexual assault,
good-touch and bad-touch was explained to the girls and the girls
were asked to share the experience, if any. She noticed that, the
Victim was talking with her friend and so she asked her about the
matter. At that time, the Victim informed her about the incident.
This is the indication that the said programme in the school was
fruitful. Non reporting of the incident to the Police by the teacher to
whom the Victim disclosed the incident, though appears unnatural,
can be no ground to discard the testimony of the Victim. There were
in all four (4) assailants. They all came at one time and ravished the
Victim and the Victim was also threatened with dire consequences.
Getting frightened by such incident and not disclosing the incident to
her family members for some days, cannot be said to be unnatural.
This shows the impact of the incident on the psyche of the Victim.
Her evidence clearly shows that, the information in the said
programme in the school gave her the required courage to speak up.
The defence tried to bring on record from the cross examination of
PW-15 Dhanashree Kutmate the Investigating Officer that, the
14/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
statement of the Victim was recorded by the then Investigating
Officer, however, the attempt went unsuccessful as the said witness
volunteered that, the statement of the Victim was not recorded on
23.01.2017. She even showed the spot of the incident to the Police.
The spot being on her way to home from the Class, was not new to
her.
11) The identification of the Appellants by the Victim before
the learned trial Court is corroborated by the identification in the
TIP. There is nothing in the evidence of the prosecution witness that,
the Appellants were shown to her prior to the TIP after arrest.
Assessing the testimony of the Victim in the light of the above
referred judgment cited by the learned Advocate for the Appellants,
the Victim fits into the category of sterling witness. She withstood
the cross-examination. The testimony of the Victim clearly shows
that, she was the truthful witness. Her testimony inspires confidence.
The account of the incident deposed by the Victim is such that, it will
leave severe scar on the mind of the Victim and her silence for some
days is not fatal for the prosecution. There is nothing to show that,
the Victim had any reason to falsely implicate the Appellants.
Considering the humble background to which the Victim belonged, it
is not expected that she will immediately report the incident to the
15/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
Police or her family members. The testimony of the Victim is free
from doubt and can be accepted without any corroboration. Nothing
has come in the cross examination of the Victim so as to discard her
testimony or to view her testimony with doubt. Nothing has come in
her evidence to show that, her testimony was inconsistent with her
previous statements. Her evidence is consistent.
12) The above evidence of the Victim and that of her mother
shows that, when the Victim disclosed her mother about the
happening, her mother, immediately approached the Police and
lodged the report. It is therefore, clear that on learning by the
Victim's mother, about the incident, immediate action of reporting
the Police about the same was taken. There is no delay on the part
of the Victim's mother in reporting the incident to the Police. The
medical evidence shows that, her hymen was found old healed
corrugated torn (edges of hymen were elevated). The evidence of
PW-5 Dr. Surekha N. Khandale, the medical officer shows that, the
Victim was examined after 38 days from the incident and therefore,
no marks on the genital regarding recent sexual intercourse will not
at all be fatal. The medical opinion was consistent with the Victim's
testimony of sexual assault. The history disclosed by the Victim to
the medical officer also corroborates the Victim's testimony. No head
16/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
injury to the Victim will not be fatal for the prosecution as there was
gap of 38 days between the incident and her medical examination.
13) The evidence of PW-8 Bhimrao Jasudkar panch for the
TIP and PW-9 Sarita Patil the Executive Magistrate who conducted
the TIP shows that, the TIP was conducted in accordance with rules.
It is natural that, some minor discrepancies may occur during the
TIP. However, unless the discrepancy is vital in nature, the TIP does
not get vitiated. Nothing of that sort, has come in the evidence even
remotely show that, the TIP suffers from serious infirmity. As held
earlier, the identification of the Appellants by the Victim before the
learned Trial Court gets corroboration in the form of identification of
the Appellants in TIP.
14) The above discussed evidence of the Victim, her mother
and the medical evidence corroborate each other. Nothing has come
in their evidence to create even slightest doubt about the
prosecution's case. The Prosecution's case is firmly established
through the testimony of the Victim. As discussed above, the
evidence is trustworthy, cogent and acceptable. No fault can be
found with the impugned judgment and order of convicting and
sentencing the Appellants. The contention of the learned Advocate
for the Appellants that, the case was out of vengeance has no
17/17 7-cr.appeal 176-24(3).odt
substance. Resultantly, the Appeals fail and hence the following
order.
ORDER
(i) The Appeals are dismissed.
(ii) R and P be sent back to the learned Trial Court.
(iii) Criminal Appeals stand disposed of.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)
Kavita
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/02/2026 11:01:46
