[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Revnath @ Suryabhan Ramprasad Dhurve vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Warud ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2026:BHC-NAG:630-DB
1 apeal221.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 221/2021
Revnath alias Suryabhan Ramprasad
Dhurve, aged 33 years, Occ. Labour,
r/o Shindhi Zunki, Kalmeshwar,
Tq. Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur (In Jail) .....APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra through PSO
Police Station Warud, Dist. Amravati. ...RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Ayushi Dangre, Advocate appointed for appellant.
Mr. A. B. Badar, A.P.P. for respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 06.01.2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 16.01.2026
JUDGMENT (Per: Anil L. Pansare, J.)
Appellant has taken exception to judgment and order dated
03.11.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special
(POCSO) Case No.133/2018, thereby convicting him for the offences
punishable under Section 376 (2)(f)(i)(j) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 ("IPC") as also under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO"). Appellant has
been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
2. Appellant was tried for the offence punishable under
Sections 366-A and 376(2)(i)(f)(j) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of
2 apeal221.21.odt
the POCSO. Prosecution's case is that the accused is stepfather of the
victim and was residing with the informant and the victim at village
Ghorad. On 27.04.2018, during absence of the informant (mother of
victim), the accused allegedly took the victim in a gunny bag to the
bank of river Wardha and committed sexual assault on her. The
informant had been to the jungle to collect firewood. On returning
home, the informant saw the appellant and the victim together. The
appellant informed that the victim bathed. In the evening, the informant
noticed swelling and bleeding from the private parts of the victim and,
on inquiry, the victim narrated the incident. The appellant did not give
any explanation when confronted and was found absent from the house
the next morning. On 28.04.2018, informant lodged report at Warud
Police Station, on which offences under the IPC and POCSO Act were
registered. Investigating Officer collected evidence and filed charge-
sheet. The appellant pleaded not guilty.
3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Defence of the
appellant was of total denial and false implication. Trial Court
considered all attending circumstances and held appellant guilty of
crime. The said finding is challenged before us.
4. We have heard Ms Ayushi Dangre, learned appointed
counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. B. Badar, learned A.P.P. for
3 apeal221.21.odt
respondent-State. We have gone through the impugned judgment,
documents, evidence etc. We will refer to the same to the extent
necessary to decide following points that arise for our consideration.
We have recorded our findings, thereon for the reasons to follow.
Sr.No. Points Findings
1. Has the prosecution proved that on In the affirmative.
27.04.2018, appellant, being stepfather of
victim, a minor girl committed rape?
2. Has the prosecution proved that appellant In the affirmative.
committed aggravated penetrative sexual
assault upon victim to attract ingredients
of Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO?
3. Whether interference is called for in the In the negative.
impugned order?
4. What order? Appeal dismissed.
As to point Nos. 1 to 3:
5. These three points are interlinked and hence they are
decided by common reasoning.
Produced below is brief role of each prosecution witness.
Sr. Name of Relation/status Nature of Testimony
No witness
1. Roshan Panch Witness Proved spot panchanama, seizure
Sadashiv (Independent) of blood-stained gunny bag from
Karnase river bank and seizure of victim's
clothes; identified seized articles
(A-1 to A-4).
2. Sau. Anita Mother of First informant; narrated
Revnath Victim/ circumstances before and after
Dhurve Informant incident, victim's disclosure,
condition of injuries, lodging of
FIR, and identified the accused.
4 apeal221.21.odt
3. [Name Victim (5-year- Star witness; gave direct ocular
Withheld] old child) account of sexual assault by
accused, identified accused in
Court, described pain, bleeding,
and medical treatment.
4. Dr. Prof. Member, Child Recorded victim's statement
Pankaja Welfare under child-friendly procedure
Sudam Ingle Committee (Exh. 25-A); proved
voluntariness and absence of
tutoring.
5. Sachin Independent Last-seen circumstance; saw
Sahebrao Eyewitness accused carrying a gunny bag
Godbole with movement inside toward
river around time of incident.
6. Dr. Pramod Medical Officer Conducted initial medical
Uddhavraoji (Rural examination; found severe
Potdar Hospital) genital and anal injuries
consistent with forcible sexual
assault within 24 hours.
7. Dr. Ashish Pediatric Confirmed 4th-degree perineal
Ashokrao Surgeon injury; destruction of vaginal and
Zadpe rectal structures; corroborated
rape by medical science.
8. Dr. Nitin Radiologist Conducted ossification test;
Shambhulalji proved victim's age (5-6 years),
Sevani attracting aggravated offence
provisions.
9. Dr. Pravin Medical Officer Examined accused; proved
Dnyaneshwar sexual capability of accused;
Thakare ruled out incapacity defense.
10. Priya PSI/ Proved investigation, FIR,
Sahebrao Investigating seizures, arrest, medical
Umale Officer referrals, CWC statement, FSL
reports, and filing of charge-
sheet.
5 apeal221.21.odt
6. PW1 is pancha witness to spot panchanama, seizure of
blood stained gunny bag from river bank, which is spot of incident. He
is also witness to seizure of victim's clothes.
7. PW2 is important witness. She is mother of victim. She
deposed that her marriage with appellant was her third marriage. The
victim is daughter delivered out of the second wedlock. Their relations
were initially cordial. Appellant then got addicted to liquor. PW2
brought him to her home town i.e. village Ghorad. They started residing
with parents of PW2. She then deposed about the incident. She went
out in morning to collect firewood. Victim and accused were in the
house. She returned back at 03:00 p.m. She saw victim and appellant
coming from Wardha river. Victim's clothes were wet. Appellant
informed her that since victim's legs were burning, he wet her in the
river. They all went to sleep. Later on PW2 realized that victim was not
comfortable. She took her to bathroom. She noticed blood on her
knicker and saw injury to vagina and anus. She then inquired with
appellant as to what is all this about, to which appellant countered as to
why is she defaming him. Later on, appellant fled away. She
approached victim and inquired again, to which victim narrated the
incident saying that appellant took her in gunny bag to Wardha river.
He removed her clothes and sat on her. He told victim to not inform
the incident to anyone. PW2 lodged report on the next day (Exh.-18).
6 apeal221.21.odt
Spot of incident was shown by victim to police.
8. In the cross-examination, it is brought on record that there
is no latrine in her house and to answer nature's call, they all used to go
by the side of river. She further admitted that when victim used to
attend the nature's call, appellant used to wash her. She deposed that
when the victim desired to urinate, at that time she found that she is in
trouble. Victim did not inform anything at that time. She further
deposed that in the evening when she noticed injury to private part of
victim even at that time she did not utter anything against the
appellant. She admitted that she along with her mother and sister,
discussed how to give report and thereafter lodged report of incident.
On the point of delay, she said that she was not knowing anything and,
therefore, there occurred delay in lodging the report. She denied
suggestion that she wanted to get separated from appellant and,
therefore, false allegations were levelled. Thereafter, omission was
brought on record that she saw private part of the victim.
9. Next comes the star witness i.e. victim herself. Statement of
victim that was recorded before the Child Welfare Committee was, by
consent, treated as her chief-examination. As such, such course was
impermissible. Nonetheless, it appears that for the sake of convenience,
parties agreed to treat her previous statement to be her chief-
7 apeal221.21.odt
examination. She stated that her father took her to river, removed her
clothes, sat on her. Thereafter, she pointed to her vagina and said that
the appellant did it by sitting and then wet her. Thus, she narrated the
incident as could be by a child aged 4 years. In the cross-examination,
a question was asked whether papa had done something wrong, to
which the victim said yes and then added that he took her to river and
slept on her. She suffered injury on her legs. Thereafter, the Court put
certain questions like where did she suffer pain when appellant slept on
her, victim said on stomach. Another question as to from where she
noticed blood coming out, she said from the portion from where she
does latrine. The subsequent question and answer show that she was
taken to doctor and medicines were applied to her private part. She
then identified appellant sitting in the Court.
10. PW4 is Member of Child Welfare Committee, who had
recorded statement of the victim, which was treated as chief-
examination of victim. Through evidence of PW4, the said statement
was proved to be voluntary.
11. PW5 is an independent eye witness who had seen appellant
carrying gunny bag with movement inside towards the river at the
relevant time.
8 apeal221.21.odt
12. PW6 is another important witness. He is doctor. He
examined victim and found following injuries :
"(i) Abrasion over the back,
(ii) Pointed abrasion over right forearm,
(iii) Abrasion over the right side of gluteal region.
(iv) Abrasion over the left side of gluteal region."
On local examination, he found following injuries:
"(i) There is no pubic hair.
(ii) Labia Majora ruptured.
(iii) Labia Minora ruptured.
(iv) Clitoris ruptured.
(v) Vagina ruptured.
(vi) Urethra ruptured.
(vii) Hymen injury present, edges at 6 O'clock.
(viii) Anus and Vagina are same plane (Wall
separating anus and vagina is ruptured."
13. He deposed that for causing genital injury, application of
force is necessary. He also described injury as severe injury on vagina
and anus. In the cross-examination, he denied that injury shown in
MLC is possible due to insertion of stick. He further deposed that
hymen break is possible due to playing, jumping and cycling.
14. PW7 is Pediatric Surgeon, who also examined the victim.
He found following four injuries:
(1) 4" degree perineal injury or tear,
(2) posterior vaginal wall destructed,
(3) Tear on rectum,
(4) Anterior part of external muscle sphincter lossed."
In the cross-examination, he deposed that he did not speak
to victim to know about the history.
9 apeal221.21.odt
15. PW8 is radiologist, who conducted Ossification Test to bring
victim's age, maybe because documentary evidence of age was not
available. PW9 is medical officer who examined appellant to prove his
sexual capacity. PW10 is investigating officer who deposed in tune with
the investigation conducted by him which includes visiting spot,
recording statement of witnesses, arresting appellant, medical
examination, FSL report, etc. He filed charge-sheet.
16. Counsel for appellant submits that there is delay of more
than 24 hours in lodging the FIR, which creates serious doubt about
prosecution case. She submits that the incident occurred in a place
visible to public yet no independent witness was examined. She further
submits that the prosecution case is based entirely on interested witness
and, therefore, cannot be believed.
17. As against, learned A.P.P. submits that lodging report in 24
hours cannot be said to be delay particularly when PW2 has explained
the same. As regards visible place, there is nothing to show presence of
persons. He further submits that while committing such offence, the
offender ensures that the incident is not seen by anybody even if the
place of incident is otherwise open space. So far as interested witnesses
are concerned, the argument of A.P.P. is that in such cases, except for
victim and her relatives, rarely find an independent witness.
10 apeal221.21.odt
18. We find substance in the submission made by learned A.P.P.
The evidence led by prosecution has brought on record essential
ingredients of offence for which appellant has been convicted. The
evidence of PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW7 is crucial. The cumulative effect
of testimony of these four witnesses is that the appellant took victim to
river side, removed her clothes and committed penetrative sexual
assault. The doctor's evidence show that anus and vagina were in same
place because wall separating the two was ruptured. These injuries
were described as severe injuries. Thus, the nature of force applied by
appellant could be imagined. Not only that hymen was ruptured at 6 O'
Clock but wall separating anus and vagina was also ruptured. The pain
suffered by victim is spelt out in the testimony of PW2 mother and PW3
victim herself. The mother said that the victim was unable to get up
and therefore she took her to bathroom and saw injury to private part.
The victim said that she suffered pain in private part and stomach.
19. Thus, the testimony of these four witnesses on the point of
sexual assault is overwhelming. Involvement of appellant in the crime
is also spelt out through PW2 and PW3. Conduct of appellant would
further substantiate the prosecution version. He fled away after having
confronted by his wife about the incident. PW5, though a chance
witness, appears to have seen appellant with gunny bag going towards
river. He also noticed movement inside the gunny bag. Thus, overall
11 apeal221.21.odt
evidence of involvement of appellant is writ large.
20. Counsel for appellant made an attempt to take advantage of
certain admissions given by the prosecution witness. She submits that
PW1 admitted that the victim did not inform her anything despite
discomfort while urinating. She further admitted that in the evening,
when she noticed injury to private part of the victim, even at that time,
she did not utter anything against the appellant. Accordingly, the
counsel argued that PW2, taking advantage of these injuries, falsely
implicated the appellant.
21. We are not impressed with the argument inasmuch as the
victim has deposed that the appellant had threatened her and said to
not disclose the incident to anybody. In such situation, the child, who
otherwise must be under shock, coupled with the father's threat, will
not blame him for the incident. Her silence for short time, therefore, is
fully justified. We may note here that the defence in cross-examination
of victim has brought on record, by putting question whether Papa had
done something wrong, that the appellant had done something wrong
by taking her to river and by sleeping on her. She further deposed in
cross-examination that she suffered injuries on her legs. The said part
of cross-examination will completely overrule the theory of false
implication of the appellant.
12 apeal221.21.odt
22. The Argument that FIR was lodged belatedly, is also
without any substance. PW2 is a rustic woman. She is not well versed
with the process of lodging FIR. In fact, even, educated persons are not
aware of the procedure. It is but natural for persons like PW2 to discuss
as to how and where to lodge FIR. In that sense, her discussion with
her mother and sister cannot be said to be a conspiracy to implicate the
appellant, particularly when there is absolutely nothing to even suggest
as to why should PW2 and her relatives go to such an extent to involve
a child with injuries to implicate the appellant. The discussion is a
process to fix line of action. Such a discussion and thinking process is
quite natural when the culprit is a father like figure.
23. We are also not convinced with the argument that the
witnesses are interested. Learned A.P.P. rightly argued that in the
matters of sexual assault, victim and her relatives, to whom she would
narrate the incident and who otherwise are concerned with the well
being of children, would naturally be aware of the victim's case and
would be, therefore, relevant witnesses. Further, interested witnesses
and related witnesses are two different terminologies. Interested
witness is the one who has interest in the result of the case. He is the
one who is interested to get/obtain a particular order against other
party. As against, the related witness is the one who is relative of the
13 apeal221.21.odt
victim. Evidence of related witness cannot be ignored by labelling them
to be interested witness.
24. The Trial Court has considered the relevant evidence. The
reasons assigned and the findings rendered appear to us to be
consistent with the material placed on record. No interference,
therefore, is called for in the impugned judgment.
25. The end result is, the prosecution has proved that the
appellant has committed rape as also penetrative sexual assault on the
victim. The Trial Court's finding is in consonance with material placed
before us. Point Nos.1 and 2 are accordingly answered in the
affirmative and point No.3 in the negative.
As to point No.4:
26. Having answered first three points in the manner
hereinabove, there is no substance in the appeal.
27. At this stage, counsel for the appellant submits that clause
(i) of Section 376(2) came to be omitted on 21.04.2018. The incident
under question occurred on 27.04.2018 and, therefore, the conviction
under sub clause (i) is unsustainable.
28. We have gone through the amendment to find that the said
clause is indeed omitted. Unfortunately, the same was not brought to
14 apeal221.21.odt
the notice of the Trial Court and accordingly appellant is held guilty
under the said clause. Order impugned will, therefore, require
modification. Nonetheless, the said modification will have no impact on
the punishment imposed because conviction under other clauses viz.
Section 376 (2) (f) (j) is the same i.e. life imprisonment.
29. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the following
modification.
Appellant - Revanth alias Suryabhan Ramprasad Dhurve is
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(j) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Rest of the order dated
03.11.2020, in Special (POCSO) Case No.133/2018, passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati shall stand intact.
Professional fees of Ms Ayushi Dangre, learned appointed
counsel for appellant, shall be quantified and paid as per the Rules.
(Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
kahale
