[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Praful Prabhakar Dhule vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ... on 13 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4228
1 apeal237.2023+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.237/2023
Sandip S/o Sambhaji Kurekar,
aged about 33 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
Resident of Village Murdhoni,
Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal (in Jail). ... Appellant
- Versus -
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Wani, District Wani. ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.258/2023
Praful Prabhakar Dhule,
aged 30 years, Occu. Service,
Resident of Shivmandir, Murdhoni,
Wani, Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal. ... Appellant
- Versus -
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Wani, District Yavatmal.
2. XYZ, Crime No.92/14,
P.S. Wani, Tq. Wani,
District Yavatmal. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. Rupesh D. Darunde, Advocate for the Appellant.
..(in Criminal Appeal No.237/2023)
Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b. Mr. S.U. Dable, Advocate
for the Appellant. ..(in Criminal Appeal No.258/2023)
Mr. Ujjawal R. Phasate, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
Ms. C.S. Bhute, Advocate (appointed) for the Respondent No.2.
..(in Criminal Appeal No.258/2023).
----------------
2 apeal237.2023+1.odt
CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 09.03.2026.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 13.03.2026.
COMMON JUDGMENT
Both these Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") against the
judgment and order dated 09.03.2023 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Kelapur, District Yavatmal in Special (POCSO) Case
No.14/2014 convicting and sentencing the Appellants as follows:-
"1] Accused No.1 Praful Prabhakar Dhule, is hereby
convicted for the offence punishable under Section
376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, as per provisions
of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for Ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five
Thousand only) in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for Five months.
2] Accused No.1 Praful is also convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian
Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for Six months and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand only) in default to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for One month.
3] Accused No.1 Praful Prabhakar Dhule and
accused No.2 Sandip Sambhaji Kurekar, are hereby
convicted for the offence punishable under Section
376-D read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
3 apeal237.2023+1.odt
and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for Twenty years each and to pay fine of
Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) each, in default
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Twenty months
each.
4] Accused No.1 Praful Prabhakar Dhule and
accused No.2 Sandip Sambhaji Kurekar, are hereby
convicted for the offence punishable under Section
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for Six months each and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand only) each, in default to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for One month each.
5] All the substantive sentences of imprisonment
shall run concurrently.
6] Accused No.1 Praful Prabhakar Dhule, No.2
Sandip Sambhaji Kurekar, No.3 Manoj Sambhaji
Dubey and No.4 Praful Vinod Dhande, are hereby
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 6,
12 and 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, so also under Section 66-E and 67-B of
the Information Technology Act.
7] Accused No.3 Manoj Sambhaji Dubey and No.4
Praful Vinod Dhande, are also hereby acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 376-D and 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and they are
set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
4 apeal237.2023+1.odt
8] During pendency of the proceedings, accused
No.1 Praful Dhule, was in detention since 15/04/2014
to 28/05/2014 and accused No.2 Sandip Kurekar, was
in detention, since 15/04/2014 to 29/09/2014,
therefore set off is accordingly granted to them for the
period already undergone, as per provisions of Section
428 of the Code Criminal Procedure.
9] Both accused No.1 and 2 are on bail, they shall
surrender to their bonds.
10] Accused No.3 Manoj Sambhaji Dubey and No.4
Praful Vinod Dhande, shall execute bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- each with surety of like amount each, for
the next period of Six months, in compliance to the
provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
11] .....
12] .....
13] .....
14] .....
15] .....
16] ....."
2. The prosecution's case, as revealed from the Police Report, is
as under:-
a) The Victim was residing with her parents and brother. She
was taking education in the local school at Murdhoni, Taluka Wani,
District Yavatmal. She became conversant with the Appellant Praful
Dhule. They used to talk with each other. The love relations
5 apeal237.2023+1.odt
developed between them. The Appellant Praful told the Victim that,
as they were going to marry with each other, they should have
physical relations. The Victim did not agree. Once, Appellant Praful
called the Victim to his house and did sexual intercourse with her.
As the visits of Appellant Praful became frequent to the house of
Victim, the parents of Victim suspected the love relations between
them. The Victim's parents sent the Victim for education to village
Borda at the house of the elder sister of Victim's mother. The
Appellant Praful started visiting the said place to meet the Victim.
The Appellant Praful did sexual intercourse with Victim at village
Borda. In 2013, the Victim's father admitted her to 11 th standard at
Wani. From August 2013, she started attending the Junior College
at Wani from her native place Murdhoni. The Appellant Praful used
to meet the Victim at the outside of college at Wani. In November
2013, the Appellant Praful took the Victim to the room of his friend
where did sexual intercourse with Victim. After some days, the
Appellant Praful took the Victim to the agricultural field at Borda
and did sexual intercourse with the Victim.
b) On 27.03.2014 at about 12 noon the Appellant Praful met the
Victim in the Tilak Square, Wani and took her with him on the
motorcycle at one place like Jangal on Moregaon Road, and did
sexual intercourse with the Victim. The Appellant Sandip Kurekar
and acquitted accused reached the said place and they did sexual
intercourse with the Victim. Appellant Praful threatened the Victim
not to disclose the incidence to any one. Due to the threat, the
Victim kept silent and did not disclose the incidence to her parents.
Thereafter both the Appellants used to come in front of the house of
the Victim's house and make gestures inviting her for physical
6 apeal237.2023+1.odt
relations and told the Victim that, they have clicked her photographs
and threatened the Victim of posting the said photos on the
Facebook.
c) On 15.04.2014 at 8 a.m. the Appellant Praful came in front of
Victim's house and asked her to accompany him. The Victim told her
parents the incident dated 27.03.2014 and approached the Wani
Police Station and lodged the Report.
d) The Crime bearing No.92/2014 came to be registered against
both the Appellants and others for the offence punishable under
Sections 376-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
"I.P.C.") and for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short "POCSO
Act"). The Victim was referred for medical examination. The
Spot-Panchanama was performed. The statement of witnesses were
recorded. The Appellants came to be arrested. The Appellants were
sent for medical examination. The documents were collected from
the school attended by the Victim. The Test Identification Parade (for
short "T.I.P.") was conducted. The seized articles were sent to the
Chemical Laboratory. The necessary documents were collected. On
completion of the investigation, the Charge-sheet came to be filed.
e) The learned trial Court framed the Charge against the
Appellants and two others for the offence punishable under Sections
376(2)(n), 417, 376-D read with Section 34 and 506 read with
Section 34 of I.P.C. and for the offence punishable under Sections 6,
12 and 14 of the POCSO Act and for the offence punishable under
Sections 66-E and 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for
short "I.T. Act") below Exh.88. The Appellants and the acquitted
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the
7 apeal237.2023+1.odt
Charge, prosecution examined in all following 14 (fourteen)
witnesses.
i) The Victim, as P.W.1,
ii) The Victim's mother, as P.W.2,
iii) Nandkishor M. Tugnayat, the Medical Officer who examined
the acquitted accused, as P.W.3,
iv) Pralhad N. Chamate, the Panch witness for seizure of the
articles, as P.W.4,
v) Avinash K. Ladke, the Headmaster of the school, where the
Victim was studying, as P.W.5,
vi) Sujata B. Sawale, the Lady Police Constable, who took the
Victim for medical examination, as P.W.6,
vii) Prajwalit P. Gour, the Radiologist who examined the Victim for
the age, as P.W.7,
viii) Ramesh B. Panghate, the Panch for Panchanama of village
Borda, as P.W.8,
ix) Vijay D. Matte, the Naib-Tahsildar who conducted the Test
Identification Parade (TIP), as P.W.9,
x) Gulabrao P. Wagh, the Investigating Officer, as P.W.10,
xi) Pradnya R. Wadekar, the Police Sub-Inspector who took the
Report and registered the Crime, as P.W.11,
xii) Shubhangi D. Dhokne, the Medical Officer who examined the
Victim, as P.W.12,
xiii) Raju R. Bageshwar, who carried the Muddemal to the Forensic
Laboratory, as P.W.13 and
xiv) Kavita S. Lanjewar, the Expert in Cyber Forensic, as P.W.14.
8 apeal237.2023+1.odt
f) The relevant documents are brought on record in the evidence
of the above referred witnesses. After the prosecution filed the
evidence closure pursis, the learned trial Court recorded the
statement of the Appellants under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
The Appellants stated that, they were falsely implicated. After
hearing both the sides and appreciating the evidence available on
record, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and
order convicting and sentencing the Appellants as above.
3. Heard the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant (Praful
Dhule), the learned Advocate for the Appellant (Sandip Kurekar),
the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned Advocate for the
Victim. Scrutinized the evidence available on record.
a) It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the
Appellant (Praful) that, the Appellants are acquitted for the Charge
under the POCSO Act and I.T. Act. The evidence of the Victim
clearly shows that, there were love relations between her and the
Appellant Praful. The Victim was major by age. Her testimony in
respect of rape at various places do not inspire confidence. Her
evidence in respect of gang rape do not inspire confidence as no one
will commit such act at the open place. The medical evidence do not
support the Victim's version. There are material omissions in the
testimony of the Victim. The evidence of the Victim's mother cannot
be accepted as she admitted that, she read the Report before
deposing. The evidence in respect of gang rape was not adequate.
The learned trial Court recorded contrary findings and shifted the
burden on the Appellants under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (for short I.E. Act") without the prosecution discharging
9 apeal237.2023+1.odt
the burden of proof as per Sections 101 to 105 of the I.E. Act. The
recovery is not relevant as the Reports of Chemical Analyzer (C.A.)
are not incriminating. The prosecution failed to establish the Charge
and the Appellants were entitled for acquittal. He relied on the
decisions in respect of his submissions, which would be considered
in the later part of the judgment.
b) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant
(Sandip Kurekar), that, the Appellant (Sandip) was a mediator for
the marriage between the Appellant Praful Dhule and one another
girl. There was no evidence to connect the Appellant (Sandip) with
the incident dated 27.03.2014. The conviction was recorded only on
the sole testimony of the Victim which do not inspire confidence.
The evidence on record do not prove the Charge and the Appeal be
allowed.
c) It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. for the State that, the
principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is not applicable in
India. Only on a residue of testimony of the Victim, conviction can
be based. Nothing has come in the cross-examination to discredit the
testimony of Victim in respect of gang rape. The cross-examination
was in the nature of denials. Even if the omissions are considered,
the other evidence of the Victim proves the case of the prosecution.
The Victim's evidence shows that, the act was against her wish.
Even though the love aspect of the Victim's testimony is accepted,
the sexual relations between the Appellant Praful and the Victim was
3 to 4 years prior to the F.I.R. and at that point of time, the Victim
was minor. No interference was warranted in the impugned
judgment and order and the Appeal be dismissed.
10 apeal237.2023+1.odt
d) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Victim that, the
Victim was raped repeatedly and due to threats she kept mum.
Nothing has come on record as to why the Victim will falsely
implicate the Appellants. As the Victim was medically examined
after a period of one month, there were no injuries found on her
person. The Appellant Sandip was called by the Appellant Praful and
the Victim was raped. In support of his submissions, he relied on the
decision in Wahid Khan V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2
SCC 9. The Appeal be dismissed.
4. As is clear from the impugned judgment and order, the
Appellants are acquitted for the offence punishable under the
POCSO Act and I.T. Act. The learned trial Court in para 100 of the
impugned judgment observed that, the prosecution utterly failed to
establish and prove that, the Victim was a 'child' within the meaning
of POCSO Act.
5. The prosecution's case largely rests on the testimony of the
Victim who is also the Informant. Her evidence shows that, she was
residing with her parents and brother at Murdhoni, Taluka Wani,
District Yavatmal. She was taking education. The Appellant Praful
was residing near her house. She became conversant with the
Appellant Praful. They became friendly. The Appellant Praful sent
love letter to her and expressed his wish to marry her. The Appellant
Praful asked for sexual favours. Though she refused, the Appellant
Praful did forceful sexual intercourse with her at his house. As their
love affair became the talk of the town, her parents shifted her for
education to another village Borda at the house of her mother's elder
11 apeal237.2023+1.odt
sister. The Victim took education at the said place Borda. The
Appellant Praful did forceful sexual intercourse with her at Borda.
The Appellant Praful used to come near her college. Appellant
Praful took her to one room of his friend and did sexual intercourse
with her at various places. The Victim deposed that, on 27.03.2014
in the afternoon, the Appellant Praful made her to forcibly sit on his
motorcycle in the Lokmanya Tilak Square, Wani which was the
crowded place and took her behind one Darga at Nimbala-Phata
Road. It was the stony surface having thorny bushes. Appellant
Praful did forceful sexual intercourse with her. After 10 to 15
minutes the acquitted accused and the Appellant Sandip came there
and they also did the sexual intercourse with her. The Appellants
told her that, they were having her video clip while having the sex
with the Appellant Praful and asked her not to disclose to anybody
or else they will make the video viral. She became unconscious.
After regaining consciousness, the Appellant Praful dropped her to
her house and threatened her not to disclose the incident to
anybody. As on 15.04.2014 the Appellant Praful came near her
house and asked her to meet him or else he will viral the video clips,
she narrated the incident to her parents and they lodged the Report
with the Police Station, Wani below Exh.117. She further deposed
that, she showed the spot of incident to the police. She identified
her clothes shown to her. She was sent for medical examination. In
the Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.), she identified the acquitted
accused.
6. The Victim's testimony that, while she was studying at
Saikrupa Mahavidyalaya at Murdhoni in 8 th standard the Appellant
12 apeal237.2023+1.odt
Praful used to come near the school, the Appellant Praful sent love
letter to her, the Appellant Praful did forceful sexual intercourse with
her at Borda, the Appellant Praful used to talk with her and
demanded sexual favours, on 27.03.2014 he took her on the
motorcycle by the Yavatmal Road behind the Darga at
Nimbala-Phata which was the place with thorny bushes where he
committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and the Appellants
threatened her to make the video clip viral of her sexual intercourse,
she felt unconscious and after regaining consciousness, the Appellant
Praful dropped her to her house and on 15.04.2014 the Appellant
Praful asked her to come or else he will make the video viral, are the
omissions which are proved through P.W.11 Police Officer who
recorded her statement.
7. The evidence of Victim's mother who is examined as P.W.2
shows that, the Victim was sent for the education at Borda since they
came to know of the love affair between the Victim and Appellant
Praful. She admitted in her cross-examination that, there was love
affair between the Victim and the Appellant Praful. The Appellant
Praful was from well to do family. Her cross-examination shows
that, the Victim did not inform her anything prior to 15.04.2014
about any of the acts. Her cross-examination shows that, before
deposing before the learned trial Court she went through the file
containing her statement and the Report so that, there would not be
any mistake in her evidence.
8. From the above evidence of the Victim and her mother it is
crystal clear that, the Victim and the Appellant Praful were in love
13 apeal237.2023+1.odt
relations. It has come in the cross-examination of the Victim that,
she did not made hue and cry when the Appellant Praful made her
forcibly to sit on the motorcycle at the Lokmanya Tilak Square. The
Victim remained silent though Appellant Praful committed forcible
sexual intercourse with her on several occasions at difference places.
Her testimony of forceful sexual intercourse by the Appellant Praful,
on so many occasions is not believable. The evidence clearly goes to
show that, the Victim was the consensual partner in whatever acts
done by the Appellant Praful.
9. As regards the incident dated 27.03.2014, it has come in her
cross-examination that, the place where she was taken by the
Appellant Praful was the place having thorny bushes and stony
surface. Her cross-examination shows that, she did not sustain
injury on any part of her body during the incident dated 27.03.2014.
It is strange that, despite the Victim was raped by other two persons
including the Appellant Sandip at the place having stony surface and
thorny bushes, she did not receive any injury on her person much
less on her backside of the body. The evidence of P.W.12 Medical
Officer who examined the Victim on 16.04.2014 shows that, she did
not find any injury on the person of Victim. The Medical Officer in
the cross-examination has deposed that, it is possible that, if a girl is
made to lie on land having thorny bushes and stone and forcefully
raped, there would be injuries on her back and dorsal side of the
body coming in contact with the land. He admitted that, if there are
penetrative laceration though healed, their marks are visible after 15
days. She did not find any symptom of any sexual transmitted
disease or infection to the Victim and mental condition of the Victim
14 apeal237.2023+1.odt
was good. She could not give opinion if the intercourse with the
Vitim was recent though she found that, there was sexual
intercourse with the Victim. It has come in the cross-examination of
the Medical Officer that, she opined in the report that, " non-
consistent with recent sexual intercourse". Her cross-examination
further shows that, the hymen tear was old and it means that, the
Victim was habitual to sexual intercourse.
10. The above medical evidence do not corroborate the Victim's
testimony about gang rape on 27.03.2014. The manner in which the
Victim deposed of the rape on her and the place of incident, the
medical evidence falsifies her testimony. The suggestion is given to
the Victim that, the Appellant Praful was going to marry with one
girl Shital and the Appellant Sandip was the mediator and as the
Victim learnt about the same, the false case was registered on
15.04.2014. Considering the omissions in the evidence of the Victim
and non-corroboration by the medical evidence, it is not possible to
rely on the testimony of the Victim. The evidence of the Victim's
mother shows that, the Appellants belong to different caste. The
suggestion is given to the Victim's mother that, since the Appellant
Praful was from well to do family, she was in favour of love affair
and marriage between the Victim and the Appellant Praful. There
cannot be any dispute in respect of the legal position in Wahid Khan
(supra) that, the evidence of the Victim of rape stands on equal
footing with that of injured witness and if her evidence inspires
confidence, corroboration is not necessary. The evidence on record
do not show that, the Victim's evidence can be accepted. The
Victims testimony do not inspire confidence so as to rely on her.
15 apeal237.2023+1.odt
Even the corroborative evidence do not support the Victim's version.
The learned trial Court has rightly observed that, the Reports of
Chemical Analyzer (Exhs.188 to 193) do not support the case of
prosecution. Though the evidence of Panch Witness P.W.4 shows
that, three (3) used condoms were seized from the spot on
16.04.2014 under the Panchanama below Exh.130, the C.A. Report
below Exh.189 shows that, neither blood nor semen were detected
in the said three (3) condoms. The prosecution's evidence falls short
of establishing the Charge for which the Appellants are convicted.
11. The other co-accused Manoj S. Dubey and Praful Dhande are
acquitted by the learned trial Court. The observations made by the
learned trial Court shows that, it based the conviction on the sole
testimony of the Victim. Surprisingly, the learned trial Court in para
114 of the impugned judgment observed that, admittedly, the
Medical Officer did not notice any injury on the person of the Victim,
so also on her genitals and further went on to observe that, the
prosecution's case was corroborated by the testimony of P.W.2
mother and the P.W.12 Medical Officer. As discussed above, the
prosecution's evidence falls short of maintaining the conviction
recorded by the learned trial Court against the Appellants. Under
such circumstances, the Appellants are entitled for acquittal.
Though the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant (Praful) relied
on seven (7) judgments in the support of his submissions, I do not
feel it necessary to burden this judgment by discussing the said
decisions. Hence, the following order.
16 apeal237.2023+1.odt
ORDER
i) The Appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 09.03.2023 passed
by the learned Special Judge, Kelapur, District Yavatmal in Special
Case No.14/2014 convicting and sentencing the Appellants for the
offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 376-D, 506 read
with Section 34 of I.PC. is quashed and set aside.
iii) The Appellants are acquitted for the offence punishable under
Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 376-D, 506 read with Section 34 of I.PC.
iv) The Appellants be released forthwith, if not required in any
other offence.
v) Record and proceedings be sent back to the learned trial
Court.
vi) The fees of the learned Advocate appointed for the
Respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs.7,500/-. The same shall be paid
by the Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee, High Court, Nagpur.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/03/2026 14:48:45
