Rameshwar Vishnu Poul vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 2266 Bom

Bombay High Court

Rameshwar Vishnu Poul vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 6 March, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:10639
                                                                       901-APEAL-586-24.odt




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2024

          Rameshwar Vishnu Poul
          Age: 28 years, Occu.: Labour,
          R/o Digras Poul, Tq. Selu,
          Dist. Parbhani                                       ..APPELLANT

                VERSUS

          1. State of Maharashtra

          2. X. Y. Z.                                          ..RESPONDENTS




                                               ....
          Mr. Mohit L. Deoda, Advocate a/w Mr. Pawan Salunke, Advocate for
          appellant
          Mrs. M.N. Ghanekar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - State
          Ms. Ashwini Lomte, Advocate for respondent no.2
                                               ....

                                                     CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
                                                     DATE : 06th MARCH, 2026

          ORAL JUDGMENT :

. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.P.P. and

learned counsel for the victim.

2. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment of conviction

rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Special Case (POCSO)

No. 35 of 2023 dated 20th December, 2023 by which the appellant is

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 354-A of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and offence punishable

under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2012'). The appellant was directed to

suffer simple imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in

default simple imprisonment for two months was directed to undergo.

3. In short, it is the case of prosecution that the victim, who was

minor at the time of incident, was called by the accused in his house under

the pretext of giving a mobile charger to one person. The accused thereafter

moved his hands over the stomach and on the breast of the victim.

4. This incident, which is narrated in brief, has resulted into setting

the criminal law in motion by way of registration of F.I.R. No. 235 of 2020

with respondent police station on 18th September 2020 at about 20:59 hours.

The appellant was arrested and subjected to medical examination. The spot

panchnama was prepared and the statement of witnesses were recorded, so

also the documents in order to prove the age of victim were also collected.

5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against

the accused. As the accused did not plead guilty to the charge which was

framed against him on 21st March 2023 below Exhibit 8 by the Additional

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

Session Judge, Parbhani, the prosecution examined total seven witnesses.

The accused was further enquired by putting necessary questions under

Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as

'Cr.P.C.'). The defence of accused was of false implication and total denial.

The additional written statement was filed below Exhibit 51 by the accused in

order to support his defence of false implication, in which he stated that on

17th January, 2013 when he returned from the agricultural field, he was

beaten mercilessly and he was implicated in a false case. The accused neither

entered the witness box nor examined any other witness.

6. Learned trial Court, after considering the evidence on record,

convicted the appellant as stated above and after following the mandate of

Section 235 of Cr.P.C., sentenced him.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the judgment has

contended that the age of victim was not proved by the prosecution. There is

delay in lodging the F.I.R. The investigation was not done in fair and proper

manner. The independent witnesses were not intentionally examined. He

also pointed out variance in the of testimony of witnesses to the spot and the

spot panchnama itself. He thus contended that the accusation was striking

example of false implication.

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

8. Learned A.P.P. has contended that the age of victim is rightly

proved. There is absolutely no delay in lodging the F.I.R. Investigation was

fair and transparent. Discrepancy recorded in timing of spot panchnama did

not go to the root of the matter.

9. Ms. Lomte, learned counsel appointed to represent Respondent

No.2 / victim has contended that the testimony of mother and victim inspires

confidence and nothing has been brought on record to show that it was a case

of false implication. She further submitted that the accused was maternal

uncle of victim, and therefore, considering the aim and object of the Act of

2012, the conviction is required to be upheld, so also the mandate of Sections

29 and 30 of the Act of 2012 is required to be honoured.

10. With the help of respective counsels, I have gone through the

record of the case and have tested their respective arguments.

11. Since the accused was convicted for commission of offence

punishable under the Act of 2012, it would have to be seen that whether the

prosecution has proved that victim was minor i.e. below 18 years of age at the

time of commission of offence. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act of 2012 defines

the minor as a person who is below 18 years of age.

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

12. The mother of victim, who was examined as PW 1, in her

examination-in-chief has stated that at the time of incident, the victim was

studying in 4th standard and she was born on 19th. She further stated her

marriage was solemnised before 11 years.

13. The prosecution has examined PW 7 / Headmaster of the

concerned Z.P. School in order to prove the date of birth of victim. PW 7 in

his examination-in-chief has stated that the victim had taken admission in the

school and admission number was 1808. He submitted that after receipt of

letter from police below Exhibit 37, he supplied the admission extract of the

victim girl. The victim took admission in third standard and prior to it she

was studying in Z.P. Primary School from some other village. The admission

form was filled by the victim while taking admission and the transfer

certificate of earlier school was also given. The date of birth of victim was 19 th

July 2014 as per the record of school of which PW 7 was Headmaster and

admission was taken on 27th June, 2022. This witness had also brought

original admission register on a record and the admission extract register was

proved below Exhibit 88. In cross-examination, PW 7 has stated that birth

certificate is required for admission form and in absence of it an affidavit from

the parents is obtained. He admitted that he did not take birth certificate and

one teacher by name Kadam Sir had maintained the admission register. He

denied the other suggestions.

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

14. PW 6 / Investigating Officer, so far as date of birth of victim is

concerned, has deposed that he had given a letter to the school and requested

for supplying admission register extract. The letter was below Exhibit

P-37/PW-6. The extract of the admission register was below Exhibit

P-38/PW- 6.

15. Except aforesaid three witnesses, there is nothing on a record to

prove the date of birth of the victim. Therefore, the testimony has to be seen

to test whether the date of birth of the victim was rightly proved or not.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment in

case of P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2023 AIR SC

3525, more particularly the following paragraphs -

"13. It is evident from the conjoint reading of the above provisions that wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or his being a victim under the POCSO Act, the courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the JJ Act. The three documents that the Juvenile Justice Act requires consideration are that the concerned court has to determine the age by considering the following documents:

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation, a municipal authority or a panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board."

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

14. Section 94(2)(iii) of the Juvenile Justice Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school, matriculation, or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be first preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation, Municipal Authority, or Panchayat. It is only thereafter, in the absence of such documents, that the age is to be determined through "an ossification test" or "any other latest medical age determination test" conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee, Board or Court. In the present case, concededly, only a transfer certificate, and not a date of birth certificate, matriculation or equivalent certificate, was considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer certificate, showed the victim's date of birth as 11.07.1997. Significantly, the transfer certificate was produced not by the prosecution but instead by the court-summoned witness, i.e., CW-1. The burden is always upon the prosecution to establish what it alleges; therefore, the prosecution could not have fallen back upon a document which it had never relied upon. Furthermore, DW-3, the concerned Revenue Official (Deputy Tahsildar), had stated on oath that the records for the year 1997 regarding births and deaths were missing. Since it did not answer to the description of any class of documents mentioned in Section 94(2)(i), as it was a mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could not have been relied upon to hold that 'M' was below 18 years at the time of commission of the offence.

15. In a recent decision in Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2021 (12) SCR 502 this Court outlined the procedure to be followed in cases where age determination is required. The court was dealing with Rule 12 of the erstwhile Juvenile Justice Rules (which is in pari materia) with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and held as follows:

20. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, deals with the procedure to be followed in the determination of age.

The juvenility of a person in conflict with the law had to be decided prima facie based on physical appearance or documents, if available. But an inquiry into the determination of age by the Court or the Juvenile Justice Board was by

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

seeking evidence by obtaining: (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available and in the absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Only in the absence of either (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the medical opinion could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board to declare the age of the juvenile or child. It was also provided that, while the determination was being made, benefit could be given to the child or juvenile by considering the age on the lower side within a margin of one year.

16. Speaking about provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially the various options in Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, this Court held in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., [2019] 9 SCR 735 that:

Clause (i) of Section 94(2) places the date of birth certificate from the school and the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board in the same category (namely (i) above). In the absence thereof, category (ii) provides for obtaining the birth certificate of the corporation, municipal authority or panchayat. It is only in the absence of

(i) and (ii) that age determination by means of medical analysis is provided. Section 94(2)(a)(i) indicates a significant change over the provisions which were contained in Rule 12(3)(a) of the Rules of 2007 made under the Act of 2000.

Under Rule 12(3)(a)(i), the matriculation or equivalent certificate was given precedence, and it was only in the event of the certificate not being available that the date of birth certificate from the school first attended could be obtained. In Section 94(2)(i), both the date of birth certificate from the school, as well as the matriculation or equivalent certificate, are placed in the same category.

17. In Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal, [2012] 9 SCR 224, this Court, through a three-judge bench, held that the burden of proving that someone is a juvenile (or below the prescribed age) is upon the person claiming it. Further, in that

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

decision, the court indicated the hierarchy of documents that would be accepted in order of preference."

17. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment would reveal that the Hon'ble

Apex Court has stated as to which document are required to be taken into

consideration before determining the date of birth of the victim. He thus

submitted that best document was not produced on record, and therefore, the

benefit should be given to the accused.

18. At this juncture it is necessary to mention here that PW 1 / mother

of victim has stated that the victim was born on 19th and she was 8 years old.

The victim has not stated that date of birth neither she had uttered anything

about the victim studying in a particular school. The birth certificate is also

not produced on record. The testimony of PW 7 only shows that the relevant

entries, recording name, place of birth, date of birth, name of parents were

taken in Exhibit 38. The foundation of these entries were not proved by

prosecution. The testimony of Investigating Officer, so far as question of the

documents regarding date of birth is concerned would only show the

procedure which he has followed. It cannot be said that the prosecution has

proved date of birth of victim and consequently the fact that victim was minor

at the time of commission of offence. Since the same is not proved, the

conviction awarded under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 2012 and

consequent punishment cannot be sustained.

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

19. The next question which falls for consideration is whether the

prosecution has proved the commission of offence punishable under Section

354-A of I.P.C. Section 354-A of I.P.C. speaks about sexual harassment and

prescribed punishment for the same. A man having a physical contact and

advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, is said to have

committed the offence of sexual assault. The entire definition of sexual

harassment is not discussed at length considering the issue involved in the

present appeal.

20. Thus, at this stage it is necessary to take into consideration the

testimony of PW 2 / victim of crime. Testimony of PW 2 would show that she

had stated that the accused was standing when she was coming from school.

Accused requested her to hand over the charger to one person. Accused then

under the pretext of giving charger to one person, called her inside the room,

closed the door, moved his hand over her breast. The victim thereafter ran

towards her mother. She showed the house of accused to her mother. She

alleged that the mother then assaulted the accused and other persons took the

accused to the police station. In cross-examination she admitted that the

accused was her maternal uncle and she knows mother of accused by name

Laxmibai.

21. Perusal of the cross-examination would reveal that there is

absolutely no effective cross-examination to this witness.

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

22. PW 1 is mother of the victim, who deposed that the victim was 8

years old and studying in 4th standard and marriage of PW 1 was performed

prior to 11 years. She stated that on 17th January 2023 at about 4:00 p.m.

her daughter came home from the school and told that the accused asked her

to give the charger to one person. On further enquiry by PW 1, the victim /

PW 2 informed her that the victim went inside the house of accused, at which

time phone of the accused fell down from the pocket of the accused. The

accused moved his hand over the stomach, so also the breast of victim. PW 1

thereafter gave at phone call to her brother and thereafter PW 1 and her

mother slapped the accused. The statement / complaint was shown to her.

Signature on which was identified by her which was below Exhibit P-13/PW-

1. She also stated that her statement was recorded under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C. which was below Exhibit P-14/P-1.

23. This witness was cross-examined by the defence in which an

attempt was made to bring on record that the spot of incident was surrounded

by many houses and was situated in a thick locality. She also admitted that

the accused and his mother Lakshmibai used to do labour work and go to the

field for that purpose. He admitted that both the accused work from 10:00

a.m. to 6:00 p.m. She admitted that on the day of incident itself she informed

about the incident to the Sarpanch, Police Patil, Kotwali at 4:30 p.m. on

phone and approximately at 06:00 report was lodged with police station, at

which time victim was with her.

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

24. She also admitted that the school hours of the victim was from

10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and victim had few friends. She also stated that the

accused was addicted to alcohol and on that day he returned from the field at

about 5:30 p.m. and he received Rs. 1,000/-. PW 1 also admitted in

testimony that accused and his mother used to go to work by putting lock to

the house. She also admitted that PW 1 and her mother had beaten the

accused by means of slaps and fist blows. She admitted that the accused was

beaten mercilessly and was left presuming dead. She further admitted that

she had put her signature on the report and the accused was brought to the

police station when he was in injured condition. She also admitted that she

was apprehending that the accused would lodge case against them. The other

suggestions given to this witness were denied.

25. At this stage it is necessary to mention here that in cross-

examination a document i.e. letter dated 18th January 2023 was brought to

her notice which was below Exhibit 17/PW 1. Challenging the testimony of

PW 1 and PW 2, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact if the

spot of incident is perused, it would reveal that it was situated in a thick

locality and therefore possibility cannot be ruled out that the incident might

have been seen by many persons. According to him, in respect of the

aforesaid fact, the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of the

independent witnesses, who could have shown the real side of the subject. He

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

further submitted that the accused was in fact beaten mercilessly and it is due

to fear of lodging of complaint by accused against the mother of victim, a

false report was lodged against his client. He further submitted that Exhibit

35, which is the communication issued by the Police Sub-Inspector to the

Medical Officer, if perused it would reveal that the accused had sustained

injuries, and therefore, it was forwarded to the Medical Officer. According to

him, non explanation of injuries in proper manner by the prosecution will go

to the root of the matter.

26. So far as other limb of argument of learned counsel for the

appellant is concerned, he has contended that though the victim was

forwarded for medical examination by way of communication below Exhibit

17 which was issued by the Police Sub-Inspector to the Medical Officer, the

victim was not medically examined. He therefore submitted that non

examination of victim also goes to the root of the matter and cumulative

effect of all these lacuna clearly show that foundation of the case is destroyed.

27. At this stage it is necessary to mention here that so far as

contention of false implication is concerned, that is not at all convincing. The

accused was beaten after the incident, and therefore, lodging of false case on

that pretext will not arise. The incident had occurred first and thereafter the

accused was beaten and then the incident culminated in lodging of F.I.R.

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

Whether the accused was beaten or not cannot be decided in this proceeding.

The defence could have taken appropriate steps in that regard.

28. It is further necessary to mention here that the victim has

categorically stated that under the garb of giving charger, she was taken in

the house and at that time accused, who was her maternal uncle, put his

hands on her stomach and breast. The said version of victim inspires

confidence. Had the victim and family members really wanted to falsely

implicate the accused, they would have infected the story and have exercised

exaggerated version. The testimony of the victim, so also her mother inspires

confidence. Just because the victim is not medically examined, it would not

affect the case of prosecution, since the incident is not pertaining to causing

any injury to the victim. The incident is only regarding touching the stomach

and breast, and therefore, there was no question of having any injury on the

person on the victim. It is further necessary to mention here that there was

absolutely no reason for the accused to call victim inside the house for giving

the charger and same, could have been handed over without even calling the

victim inside the house.

29. So far as contention that the spot was surrounded by houses and

was situated in a thick locality, and therefore, the Investigating Officer ought

to have recorded the statement of independent witnesses, is also required to

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

be tested in the background that it is for the prosecution to build its own story

on the material available. Just because the independent witnesses are not

available, the same would not affect the case of the prosecution. In the case

of sexual harassment, offence is committed within four walls, and therefore,

availability of the independent witnesses is remote a dream.

30. Learned counsel for the appellant then invited my attention to the

testimony of PW 3 and PW 4. PW 3 is Mohan Poul and PW 4 is Yogesh Poul.

Both of them, according to learned A.P.P. are independent witnesses. PW 3

has stated that he knows the accused as well as the victim and the incident

had taken place on 17th January 2023 at 4:30 p.m. at which time he along

with Yogesh and Vikas were sitting outside the library of the village and the

victim was proceeding towards her house crying. The victim then returned

along with her mother and went to the house of the accused.

31. PW 3 deposed that mother of victim then enquired from the

accused regarding the incident and while doing so, was trying to enter the

house of the accused. When PW 3 enquired, the incident was narrated to

him. Thereafter PW 3 took the victim and mother to the police station where

his statement was also recorded. PW 3 has stated that earlier to the said

incident, 2 to 3 offences of similar nature were registered against the accused.

He submitted that his statement was recorded in Selu Court, which was below

Exhibit 22.

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

32. In cross-examination, an attempt was made to show that if one sits

outside the library, he could notice what has happened in the house of the

accused. It was also tried to be brought on record that near to the house of

the accused, a temple as well as a vehicle stop is also situated and if

commotion is made near the house of accused, it can be heard near library. By

way of aforesaid defence, again a contention was advanced that presence of

PW 3 and 4 is doubtful, so also the incident in question. Had the incident

really occurred and since the victim has raised shouts, PW 3 and 4 would have

immediately rushed to the spot.

33. According to learned counsel for the appellant, since that has not

been done, story of prosecution becomes doubtful. An omission was also put

to this witness regarding earlier 2 to 3 cases lodged against the accused which

was of similar nature. The other suggestions were denied by this witness.

34. One more story was tried to be built up by the defence that father

of the victim, so also the mother were not on good terms, and therefore, the

question of father narrating the incident to the witnesses does not arise.

35. Challenging the testimony of PW 4, the defence has raised the

similar grounds as for challenging the testimony of PW 3. PW 4 was also one

of the persons who was sitting outside the village library and saw the victim

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

crying and proceeding towards the house and returning with her mother. In

fact PW 3 and 4 were examined by the prosecution to prove the post incident

conduct of the accused as well as the victim and the victim's mother. As far as

cross-examination of PW 4 is concerned, similar attempt is made to show that

the house of the accused was situated in a thick locality. Further an attempt

was made to show that at the relevant time PW 4 was not present on the spot

since he was a milkman and used to visit various places for collection of milk.

36. At this stage it is necessary to mention here that the testimony of

PW 3 and 4 is regarding the facts which had taken place after the incident.

The presence of PW 3 and 4 cannot be doubted since they have categorically

stated that they were sitting outside the village library and saw victim girl

crying and proceeding towards her house. Just because PW 4 was a milkman

and used to visit various places for collection of milk, it cannot be inferred

that he was not present at the spot on the day of incident. General statement

in that regard, cannot weaken the specific case of prosecution. Even

otherwise, nothing has been brought on record to show that this witness is an

interested witness or planted by prosecution.

37. The contention that the spot of incident can be noticed from the

library as well as the shouts can be heard if it is raised from the house of the

accused, is without any substance. According to the case of the victim, the

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

incident had occurred inside the house of accused. If the spot panchnama,

below Exhibit-28/PW-5 is perused, it would reveal that it was in the last room

of the house, where the crime was committed.

38. The further contention that father of the victim was not residing

with the mother of victim, and therefore, it creates doubt regarding father

narrating the incident to the witnesses, is also not very convincing as I could

not see just because the parents are on enimical terms, one of the parents will

not narrate the incident regarding atrocities committed on a the child.

39. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that spot

panchnama drawn is an striking example planting false documents. He

submitted that PW 5 was the panch to the spot panchnama, who in his

testimony has categorically stated that they along with others left from the

police station at about 12:30 whereas the spot panchnama below Exhibit 28

would clearly reveal that it started on 12:25 and ended on 13:25. He thus

submitted that the said aspect goes to the root of matter and therefore, the

said document may not be believed or relied upon. At this juncture it is

necessary to mention here that the spot panchnama is not only tried to be

proved by PW 5, but also through the testimony of PW 6 i.e. the Investigating

Officer, who in his examination-in-chief has categorically stated that it was

the complainant, who had shown the spot of incident and before that a letter

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

was issued to the office of Panchayat Samiti, Selu for providing two

government panchas. The letter dated 18 th January 2023 was proved by the

said witness below exhibit P-32/PW-6. In compliance with the aforesaid

letter, two witnesses were sent i.e. PW 5 / Amol and one Mohammad Kalim.

This witness had stated that the spot panchnama below Exhibit 23 was

prepared from 12:25 to 13:25. If cross-examination of this witness i.e. PW 6 /

Investigating Officer is seen, it would reveal that the suggestion was given

that he had not been to the spot of incident and prepared the spot panchnama

at police station. The Investigating Officer had admitted that while preparing

spot panchnama, though it was necessary to take anti clockwise photograph

of the spot of incident, that was not done. So far as the timing of spot

panchnama is concerned, that was not challenged by the defence by way of

cross-examination of this witness.

40. So far as timing of sport panchnama, which has come in the

testimony of PW 5 is concerned, it can be said that it is minor mistake and

will not go to the root of the matter. The testimony of PW 6 / Investigating

Officer is crystal clear that spot panchnama was prepared from 12:25 to

13:25. Few minutes gap would not go to the root of the matter. It is not

expected from the witness that he would give parrot like testimony. The

question is whether the testimony shows the element of truth or not. Since

the testimony of PW 5 and 6 and mother of victim showing the spot of

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

incident, shows ring of truth, I come to the conclusion that the spot

panchnama was also rightly proved by the prosecution.

41. In that view of the matter, I come to the conclusion that the

prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. So far as

conviction under Section 354-A of I.P.C. is concerned, the accused was the

maternal uncle of the victim and the trust which the victim has reposed on the

accused is breached, by him by committing the atrocity. The physical contact

with sexual intent clearly makes out the case under Section 354-A of the IPC.

In that view of the matter, following order is passed -

                                     ORDER

           (I)     Appeal is partly allowed.

           (II)    The judgment in Special Case No. 35 of 2023 delivered by

the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani dated 20th December 2023 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is set aside.

(III) The accused is acquitted of commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

(IV) The judgment in Special Case No. 35 of 2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Parbhani dated 20th December 2023 convicting the appellant for commission of offence

901-APEAL-586-24.odt

punishable under Section 354-A of the I.P.C. and payment of fine is maintained.

(V) The appellant is directed to undergo the sentence of simple imprisonment of 3 years and pay fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine is directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

(VI) The fees of Ms. Ashwini Lomte, learned counsel appointed to represent Respondent No.2 / victim be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-committee, Aurangabad as per the rules.

( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) SSD