[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kiran Rajebhau Sherekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2966
908.APPLN.3587.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3587 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1068 OF 2023
Kiran s/o Rajebhau Sherekar,
Age : 26 Years, Occu : Agril. and Driver,
R/o. Dongar Pimpla,
Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ...APPLICANT
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police station Ambajogai Rural,
Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
2. X ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1068 OF 2023
***
Mr. Gade Akash D., Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for Respondent - State.
Ms. Sunita Sonawane, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
***
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : JANUARY 23, 2026
ORDER :
1. This is an application for grant of bail and suspension of
sentence. The applicant, who is the sole accused, was convicted in
Special (Case) No.41 of 20222, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO
Act), Ambajogai, Taluka Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. He was convicted for
commission of offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of
908.APPLN.3587.2025
Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Act of 2012" for the sake of brevity) and Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC" for the sake of
brevity). The applicant was also convicted for the commission of
offence punishable under Section 376AB of the IPC and no separate
punishment was awarded in the light of Section 42 of the Act of 2012.
For commission of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act of
2012, the applicant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
20 years and fine of ₹ 10,000/-. For the commission of offence
punishable under Section 506 of IPC the applicant was directed suffer
rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of 5,000/-. Default sentences
were also imposed on the applicant.
2. A first information report, i.e., Exhibit 74-C, was lodged on
19th March 2022 with the Ambajogai Rural Police Station, bearing
No.49 of 2022, for the commission of offences punishable under
Section 376, 376(2)(j), 376AB and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4 and
6 of the Act of 2012, at the instance of the uncle of the victim, against
the present appellant.
3. The uncle, who was examined as PW-2 during the course
of the trial, has stated that the victim of the crime aged about 8 ½
908.APPLN.3587.2025
years old at the time of the incident was subjected to forcible sexual
intercourse on 19th March 2022, and therefore, the report was lodged.
After arrest of the applicant, the clothes were seized, so also the victim
and the applicant were forwarded for the medical examination.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that, since the defence has
admitted Exhibit 45-C, which is the birth certificate, the only question
which is required to be answered, is whether the offence of forcible
sexual intercourse is proved or not in order to invoke the provisions of
the Act of 2012.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
testimony advanced by the victim is not at all believable. Before
dealing with the contention of the counsel for the applicant, it is
necessary to narrate the incident in question in brief. According to the
victim, who was examined as PW-1 in the prosecution, she in her
examination-in-chief, has stated as under :
"I am residing at Dongrapimpla along with my
grandparents and uncle. My parents are residing at
Pune. I am taking education in 4 th Standard at ____
School. The incident took place on 19 th March 2022
about 03.30 p.m. in the house of ______ (accused).
At the relevant time, I was playing with _______
908.APPLN.3587.2025
(friends of the victim) below Tamarind tree. At that
time, I left my footwear at the resident of ____
(friend of the victim). Therefore, I went to house of
___. At that time, _____ (accused) called me inside
his house. Thereafter, ___ (accused) closed the
doors of his house. Then, accused removed his pant.
He also removed my pant. Thereafter, he penetrated
his penis in my vagina. The victim clarified that
vkjksihph vo?kM tkxk Eg.kts R;kph lq ph tkxk vkf.k
frph vo?kM tkxk Eg.kts frph lq ph tkxk- At that
time, I have raised alarm. However, accused gagged
my mouth by his hand. Thereafter, I went to the
hose of elder mother namely Kalinda."
6. In the light of the aforesaid testimony, the learned counsel
for the applicant has invited my attention to the cross-examination
conducted. He submitted that, as per the cross-examination of PW-1,
the applicant, on the day of incident, in the morning itself had gone to
the Ambajogai and thereafter had not returned. He thus submitted
that, if that is the admission given by the victim of the crime, then
there is no question of applicant performing any forcible sexual
intercourse on the victim, on the day of the incident.
7. He further submitted that it is also admitted by the victim
in her cross-examination that, on the day of incident, her school
908.APPLN.3587.2025
timings were over at 12.30 p.m., and thereafter she returned home,
when her aunt took her and went to the field. According to the
learned counsel for the applicant, the testimony of the witness shows
that the victim was thereafter taken to the field by the aunt, and
therefore, again the question remains whether act was really
performed by the applicant or not. He submitted that the day on
which the incident had taken place was Saturday, and on every
Saturday she used to visit the field. He thus submits that the genesis
of crime is suppressed by the prosecution. In fact, according to him,
the applicant was not even present on the spot.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted
that, in medical examination of the witness also, nothing incriminating
was found. He further invited my attention to the testimony of PW-3,
who conducted the initial medical examination of the victim, and
thereafter to the testimony of PW-5.
9. PW-3 was, at the relevant time, attached to the S.R.T. R.
Hospital, Ambajogai, as a Medical Officer, whereas PW-5 was working
on the post of Assistant Professor, OBGY Department of S.R.T.R.
Hospital, Ambajogai. Inviting my attention to the testimony of this
witnesses, he submitted that, had there been any forcible sexual
908.APPLN.3587.2025
intercourse, there would have been injuries on the person of the
victim. He thus submitted that even the medical evidence supports the
defence and falsifies the story advanced by the prosecution.
10. He further submitted that present applicant is behind bars
since the year 2022 and, considering the fact that the sentence
imposed upon the applicant is 20 years, he be released on bail.
11. Per contra, learned APP submitted that the age of the
victim is not disputed, and therefore, the presumption is required to be
raised under Section 29 and 30 of the Act of 2012. He submitted that
there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of a minor girl.
12. Ms. Sunita Sonawane, learned appointed counsel for the
victim, has also supported the stand taken by the prosecution and has
submitted that, if the testimony of witnesses is perused, it would reveal
that there is a ring of truth in the version advanced by the prosecution
through the witnesses.
13. With the able assistance of the learned counsels, I have
gone through the record of the case and have given my thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced.
908.APPLN.3587.2025
14. Admittedly, the victim was 8 ½ years old at the time of the
incident. The birth certificate at Exhibit 45 was admitted by the
defence.
15. Sofar as the question of commission of the offence of
forcible sexual intercourse is concerned, the testimony of PW-1 is
already discussed (supra). Suffice it to say that the victim has
categorically stated that she was subjected to forcible sexual
intercourse.
16. Apart from it, the testimony of PW-5 is perused, she has
deposed that, from the local examination of the victim, the possibility
of penetrative sexual assault cannot be ruled out. Though she was
subjected to the cross-examination, it would be enough to say that, at
the stage of considering the application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail, detailed scrutiny of evidence may not be required.
17. Further, PW-5 has also stated that, on local examination,
she found a hymenal tear at the 6 O'clock position. In cross-
examination, the witness had denied to say that, in case of forceful
penetration by adult male on minor victim, there should be bruises,
abrasion, laceration etc. in each case.
908.APPLN.3587.2025
18. Be that as it may, nothing has been brought on record by
the learned counsel to show that there was any reason for false
implication, except the answer given in 313 statement, more
particularly the question No.43. The defence had advanced a reason
for false implication that, since the applicant and the mother of the
victim used to talk on telephone, on the basis of suspicion, a false
report is filed. I do not fined any substance in the defence taken by the
applicant. Be that as it may, since the prosecution has tendered
reliable and cogent evidence, which has resulted into conviction of the
applicant, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on
bail. Needless to mention that presumption which was available to the
accused of innocence is now wiped out by way of pronouncement of
judgment of conviction.
19. In that view of the matter, the application is dismissed.
20. The learned counsel, Ms. Sunita Sonawane, has assisted
the Court ably and therefore her fees be quantified at ₹ 7,000/-.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
