[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bhaskar Vishavanath Nanhe vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Ps Ural Tq. ... on 5 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:10
1/6 17-appeal 379-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1026 OF 2025(APPA)
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2025
Bhaskar Vishavanath Nanhe Vs. State of Maharashtra
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms.Sonali Khobragade, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for the State.
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE : 05/01/2026
1) This is an application for suspension of a sentence
imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.38 of 2018 by an judgment
and order dated 09/12/2022 convicting the
applicant/appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(1) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years
and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine
to suffer simple imprisonment of one month.
2) Heard the learned Advocate for the
applicant/appellant and the learned APP for the State. They
took me through the relevant evidence.
Kavita
2/6 17-appeal 379-25
3) It is the case of the prosecution that the
informant's daughter aged 20 years, who was deaf and
dumb was raped by the applicant/appellant on 25/12/2017,
when the victim had gone to throw the garbage. The victim's
mother saw the applicant/appellant and the victim together
and the applicant/appellant ran away. The incident was
reported to the concerned police Station and crime bearing
No.475 of 2017 was registered against the
applicant/appellant for the offence punishable under Section
376(2)(1) of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation
the applicant/appellant was chargesheeted and after full
fledged trial, he came to be convicted as above.
4) According to the learned Advocate for the
applicant/appellant, there was love affair between the victim
and applicant/appellant and when the victim's mother saw
them together, she lodged the report of rape against the
applicant/appellant. She submits that the medical evidence
do not support the case of the prosecution in respect of rape.
She further submits that, at the relevant time, the minimum
punishment provided for the said offence was for Seven (7)
years imprisonment and the learned trial court considered
the amended sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment and
awarded ten (10) years imprisonment. She submits that
during the trial, the applicant/appellant was on bail and he
Kavita
3/6 17-appeal 379-25
has put in three and half years of imprisonment till date.
She submits that the application be allowed.
5) The learned APP for the State submits that, the
victim's testimony establishes the charge of rape. The
victim's mother supports the victim's testimony. Nothing is
brought in the cross-examination so as to discard the case of
prosecution. He further submits that, though the minimum
sentence for the offence at the relevant time was of seven(7)
years, the maximum punishment was of imprisonment for
life. He submits that, considering the evidence on record,
the application be rejected.
6) The victim who is examined as PW-2, in her
testimony deposed that, on the relevant day, when she went
for throwing garbage after sweeping the courtyard, the
applicant/appellant dragged her in the field by pressing her
mouth and committed forceful intercourse with her. She
further deposed that, the applicant/appellant beat her by
stick and slapped and her mother, two brothers and other
people reached on the spot. However, she admitted in the
cross examination that she did not suffer injury on back due
to stick. Further, her testimony that applicant pressed her
mouth, pulled her down, kissed on lips, beat her with stick
and slapped were the omissions.
7) The testimony of the victim's mother, who is
examined as PW-4 show that on 25/12/2017, when she
returned home in the evening and did not find the victim at
Kavita
4/6 17-appeal 379-25
home, she searched for her and the victim was found with
the applicant/appellant near the heap of straw and victim
was not having clothes on her body and applicant/appellant
had removed his full pant. Her testimony show that, the
applicant/appellant ran away from there after seeing them.
The testimony of the victim's mother nowhere show that the
victim was struggling or opposing the act of sexual
intercourse. The cross-examination of the victim's mother
who is also the first informant, indicate that, there was love
affair between the victim and the applicant/appellant.
There is no dispute that, at the relevant time, the victim was
major by age.
8) The evidence of the Medical Officer i.e. PW-6
show that there was no external injury, though her hymen
was torn and was found ruptured. This indicate that the
testimony of the victim in respect of assault by the
applicant/appellant with stick is not corroborated by the
medical evidence. The cross-examination of the Medical
Officer indicate that, as the bleeding or edema was not
present at the time of examination of victim and it can be
said that, intercourse did not occur within 24 hours. This
prima facie indicate that, the medical evidence do not
corroborate the victims testimony in respect of forceful
intercourse.
9) In view of above observations, the
applicant/appellant, is having good case on merits. The
Kavita
5/6 17-appeal 379-25
learned Trial Court, as can be seen from the observations in
Paragraph No.29 of the impugned judgment show that it
considered awarding the minimum sentence of ten(10) years
and fine. The learned Advocate for the applicant/appellant
rightly pointed that the minimum sentence of imprisonment
of ten(10) years was brought in the statute on 21 st April
2018 and at the relevant time i.e. at the time of incident
which occurred in December 2017, the minimum
punishment was for seven(7) years imprisonment. The
applicant/appellant has already put in three and half years
(3 ½ ) of imprisonment. He was on bail during the trial. The
appeal is of the year 2025, and not likely to be finally heard
in the near future. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The sentence imposed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.38 of 2018
by an judgment and order dated 09/12/2022 convicting the
applicant/appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(1) of Indian Penal Code is hereby suspended
till the final disposal of the Criminal Appeal.
(iii) The applicant/appellant be released on P.R. Bond of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only), with one surety
in the like amount.
(iv) Bail before the trial Court.
Kavita
6/6 17-appeal 379-25
(v) The applicant/appellant shall cooperate in the early
hearing of the Criminal Appeal.
(vi) The application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Signed by: Kavita P Kavita
Tayade
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/01/2026 18:09:10
