[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sachin S/O Shivaji Dhongade vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Police ... on 5 January, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
1 26-APPEAL-311-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.311/2021
Sachin s/o Shivaji Dhongade
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O., Police Station Bhadrawati
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mrs. Sunita Paul Advocate (Appointed) for Appellant
Mr. S.S.Doifode, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent
CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE, AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATED : 5th JANUARY, 2026
1. Heard.
2. On 12th June, 2023, following order was
passed :
". Heard.
2. We are facing a very difficult
situation which happens seldom. The appellant
(accused) was charged for the offence punishable
under Section 4 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act",
for short) and Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ("IPC", for short). After full fledged
trial, the Trial Court has sentenced the appellant
(accused) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
seven years for the offence punishable under
Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Though, the Trial
Court also convicted the accused for Section 376
of the IPC, however, no separate punishment was
imposed.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of
conviction, the accused has preferred Criminal
Appeal No.30 of 2015 before this Court. The
learned Single Judge has tested the legality and
2 26-APPEAL-311-21.odt
was of the view that the order of conviction was
proper. However, the learned Single Judge noted
that the prosecutrix was barely a four years of
age and thus, the conviction should have been
under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, which is a punishment provided by
statute for aggravated form of penetrative sexual
assault. With such a finding, this Court has
remitted back the matter to the Trial Court to
pass appropriate sentence for the offence
punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act
coupled with the offence of rape, as per Section
376(2)(i) of the IPC. Latter, the Trial Court has
heard both the sides on the point of sentence,
obviously which was expected by order of
remand. After hearing both the sides, the Trial
Court has sentenced the accused to suffer
imprisonment for life for the offence punishable
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but not
passed separate sentence for Section 376(2)(i) of
the IPC.
4. The learned Advocate (Appointed)
would submit that this appeal was admitted, and
therefore, the entire matter is to be heard. It is
submitted that challenge to the finding of guilt
still subsists. In our view, already order of
conviction was challenged before the learned
Single Judge of this Court. This Court has
affirmed the finding of guilt, but only remitted
the matter to the Trial Court for passing
appropriate sentence for the offence of
aggravated form of penetrative sexual
intercourse. In the background, the Sessions
Court after remand has merely heard on the
point of sentence and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life.
5. In the situation, according to us, it is
now open for accused to only challenge the
aspect of proportionality and quantum of the
sentence. We cannot consider the correctness of
the finding of guilt because already the learned
Single Judge of this Court has decided the appeal
by affirming the finding of guilt. In any way, we
cannot sit in appeal against the finding recorded
by the learned Single Judge.
6. It was informed by learned Advocate
3 26-APPEAL-311-21.odt
(Appointed) that the finding of learned Single
Judge was not challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In the situation, if the appellant
intends to challenge the finding, we feel that he
should have approached to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court or he should choose to pursue this appeal,
which we will deal to the extent of
proportionality of the punishment. It is a matter
where the Legal Aid Counsel was appointed. We
feel that a proper legal advice should be given to
the appellant (accused) as to what course of
action he should adopt.
7. Mr S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate who is
well experienced in dealing criminal matters is
before us to whom we request to consider the
situation and give his opinion to the Secretary,
High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
Nagpur, so that the further course of action
would be decided.
8. Stand over after three weeks."
3. As could be seen, the appellant had
approached the High Court against the order of
conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 30/2015. The learned
Single Judge of this Court held that the conviction was
proper but was of the view that punishment imposed is
inadequate. The learned Single Judge accordingly
remanded the matter back to the trial Court for the
purpose of passing appropriate sentence for the offence
punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (In short, POCSO Act),
coupled with offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the
Indian Penal Code (In short, IPC).
4. Accordingly, the trial Court heard both the
sides on the point of sentence and sentenced the
appellant to imprisonment for life for offence punishable
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but did not pass
4 26-APPEAL-311-21.odt
separate punishment for the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(i) of IPC.
5. We are informed that the appellant had
challenged the judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (CRL.)
Nos. 4795-4797/2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 21st April, 2025 was pleased to set aside the
order dated 8th March, 2016, passed by the learned
Single Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 30/2015.
Consequently, the order passed by the Special Court
dated 28th April, 2016 in Special Case No. 5/2013,
convicting and sentencing the appellant to suffer life
imprisonment is also set aside.
6. We are further informed that pursuant to the
order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
appellant has been released.
7. In view thereof, nothing survives in the
present appeal. The same is accordingly disposed off.
8. Fees of the appointed counsel for the
appellant be quantified and be paid according to rule.
(NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
MP Deshpande
Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/01/2026 17:42:17
