Yadavrao S/O Arjunrao Dongre vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2714 Bom

Bombay High Court

Yadavrao S/O Arjunrao Dongre vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ... on 16 March, 2026

Author: Anil L. Pansare

Bench: Anil L. Pansare

2026:BHC-NAG:4412-DB

                                                    -1-                  APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2021

                APPELLANT                      :      Yadavrao S/o. Arjunrao Dongare,
                                                      Aged about 72 Years, R/o. Asara, Tq.
                                                      Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati, At Present :
                                                      Near Divekar Akhada, Akola, Tq. &
                                                      Dist. Akola.

                                                            //VERSUS//

                RESPONDENTS                    : 1. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O.
                                                    Civil Line, Tq. & Dist. Akola.
                Amendment carried out as per       2. X.Y.Z. (victim), Crime No.493/2018,
                Court's     Order     dated
                30/01/2023.
                                                      P.S.O., P.S. Civil Line, Akola,
                                                      Tq. & Dist. Akola.

                __________________________________________________________
                  Mr. Ajay S. Londhe, Advocate for the Appellant (thr. V.C.).
                  Mr. A.B. Badar, APP for Respondent No.1.
                  None for Respondent No.2 - Victim.
                __________________________________________________________
                                   CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
                                           RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
                                   RESERVED ON :     17th DECEMBER, 2025.
                                   PRONOUNCED ON : 16th MARCH, 2026.

                JUDGMENT (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)

Heard Mr. Ajay Londhe, learned counsel for the appellant

appearing through video conferencing, and Mr. A.B. Badar, learned

APP for respondent No.1/State. None appears for respondent

No.2 - Victim.

-2- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

02. The present appellant has approached this Court challenging

the impugned judgment dated 9th June, 2021 passed by the learned

Extra Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in

Sessions Trial No. 07/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted

for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"), and Sections 3(b) punishable under

Section 4 and Section 5(m)(n) punishable under Section 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short,

"POCSO Act"). The learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to

suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in

default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, for the offence

punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC. The learned trial Court

has also sentenced the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life, to run

concurrently, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(b)

punishable under Section 4 and Section 5(m)(n) punishable under

Section 6 of the POCSO Act, along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for each

offence, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for

each offence under the said Act.

03. The prosecution case in brief leading to the conviction of the

present appellant is as follows:

The complainant, Suman Sanjay Meshram, is the

grandmother of the victim, who was about three and a half years old at

-3- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

the time of the incident. The parents of the victim were separated and

she was residing with her grandmother at Divekar Akhada, Civil Line,

Akola. On 10th November, 2018, the complainant lodged a report with

the respondent - Police Station alleging that when she returned home at

about 6.00 p.m. from work, she found her granddaughter weeping. On

enquiry, the prosecutrix told her grandmother that she was having pain

in her genitals and stated that the appellant has applied "Kut" to her.

04. The complainant narrated the said incident to one Lata

Gharade and thereafter, along with her and the prosecutrix, went to the

Police Station and lodged the written complaint. On the basis of the

said written complaint, First Information Report No.493/2018 came to

be registered at Police Station, Civil Line, Akola for the aforesaid

offences and the law was set into motion.

05. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and

filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. The charge was

framed at Exh.2, which was read over and explained to the appellant in

vernacular, to which he pleaded not guilty vide Exh.3. The prosecution

examined in all ten witnesses to bring home the guilt of the appellant.

After the evidence was closed, the statement of the appellant was

recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

-4- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

06. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, convicted

the appellant for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to suffer

imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under each of

the offences alleged against him. Being aggrieved by the same, the

appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeal.

07. We have gone through the evidence, documents, and the

impugned judgment. We will refer the same to the extent if necessary to

decide the following points that arise for our consideration. We have

recorded our findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. No. Points Findings

(i) Whether the sexual assault, as Yes.

contemplated under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the POCSO Act, was committed on the prosecutrix?

(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved Yes.

that the present appellant committed sexual intercourse with the minor prosecutrix, who is his relative, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC?

(iii) Whether the prosecution has proved Yes.

that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault upon the minor prosecutrix and thereby committed an offence under Section 3(b), punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act?

(iv) Whether the prosecution has proved Yes.

-5- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

that the appellant committed aggravated repeated penetrative sexual assault upon the minor prosecutrix below 12 years of age, who is his relative, and thereby committed an offence under Section 5(m)(n), punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act?

(v) Whether interference is called for in No. the impugned judgment?

(vi) What order? Appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

As to point No.(i)

08. The prosecution has examined PW-10 Dr. Madhuri Gajanan

Dhakane, who examined the prosecutrix and treated her after the

incidence. The said doctor has deposed on oath that injuries were

noticed on the genital parts of the prosecutrix and has specifically stated

that such injuries can be caused in an attempt of rape. The medico-legal

examination report of sexual violence submitted by PW-10 is at Exh.48,

which reveals that there was sexual assault upon the prosecutrix and that

there was penetration by finger in the genitalia of the victim, resulting

in redness around the hymen with inflammation.

09. The sexual assault upon the prosecutrix is further

substantiated by the evidence of PW-10, who has deposed that the

prosecutrix was hospitalised from 11th November, 2018 to

-6- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

19th November, 2018 for treatment of the said sexual assault. She has

proved on record the discharge card, which is at Exh.40. A perusal of

the said discharge card reveals that the diagnosis was of sexual assault

and accordingly the prosecutrix was treated for eight days in the

pediatric ward.

10. Thus, the aforesaid medical evidence, apart from the oral

evidence of the prosecutrix and her grandmother, proves that sexual

assault, as contemplated under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 3

and 5 of the POCSO Act, was committed upon the prosecutrix.

Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative.

As to point Nos.(ii) to (v)

11. The question that now arises for consideration is as to who

committed the sexual assault upon the minor child aged about three and

a half years. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses to prove the

guilt of the appellant. In our considered opinion, for the reasons stated

hereinafter, the appellant, who was about 70 years old at the time of the

incidence and was an elder member of the family, like a grandfather to

the prosecutrix, had access to the minor child and, taking advantage of

the same, committed the heinous act. The learned trial Court has,

therefore, rightly convicted the appellant.

-7- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

12. In order to prove the age of the prosecutrix, the prosecution

examined PW-7 Mohan Somchandra Giri, whose evidence is at

Exh.26A (record page No.43). PW-7 was serving as a Clerk in the Birth

and Death Registration Office of the Municipal Corporation, Akola. On

the basis of the original record regarding the birth of the prosecutrix

produced before the Court and the entry at page No.516 of the Birth

Register for the year 2015 at Serial No.10851, PW-7 deposed that the

date of birth of the prosecutrix was 24th March, 2015. PW-7 has also

proved on record the birth certificate of the prosecutrix at Exh.27

showing her date of birth as 24th March, 2015.

13. The incidence occurred on 10th November, 2018 and thus it

is proved that the prosecutrix was about three years and eight months

old at the time of the incidence.

14. At the cost of repetition, we would refer to the evidence of

PW-10 Dr. Madhuri Gajanan Dhakane, who has in detail deposed

before the learned rrial Court regarding the injuries sustained by the

minor prosecutrix resulting in redness around the hymen with

inflammation. PW-10 deposed that the aforesaid injuries were fresh and

could be caused in an attempt of rape. PW-10 specifically denied the

suggestion in cross-examination that such injuries could be caused by

itching. She volunteered that such injuries cannot be caused by the child

-8- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

herself by itching with her own finger.

15. PW-10, in cross-examination, specifically deposed that at the

time of medical examination, the prosecutrix was not in a position to

give history and was suffering from painful urination. She stated that

the child was suffering from pain and hence her grandmother gave the

history.

16. A perusal of the medico-legal examination report of sexual

violence conducted on 11th November, 2018 at 4.08 a.m., which is at

Exh.48, reveals that in Column 15A(vii) the history was narrated by the

prosecutrix's grandmother, i.e., the complainant, wherein she

specifically informed the doctor that the present appellant committed

sexual assault upon her granddaughter by luring her with chocolate.

The doctor, after conducting the medical examination, in Column

No.15F regarding sexual violence has specifically opined that there was

penetration by finger in the genitalia of the prosecutrix. Column No.17

regarding the examination of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix

reveals that there was redness around the hymen with inflammation. All

such findings substantiate that sexual assault was committed upon the

prosecutrix on the fateful day.

17. A perusal of the discharge card, which is at record page

No.64 (Exh.40) proved by PW-10, reveals that the prosecutrix was

-9- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

admitted to Government Medical College and Hospital, Akola from

11th November, 2018 to 19th November, 2018 for the treatment of

sexual assault. A perusal of the history in the discharge card reveals the

history narrated, which again implicates the present appellant. The

diagnosis in the discharge card is specifically of sexual assault and

accordingly the prosecutrix was treated for a period of eight days. Even

on the day of discharge, i.e., 19 th November, 2018, the discharge card

reveals that the redness around the hymen was reduced but not

completely cured. The aforesaid fact clearly speaks volumes about the

nature of penetrative sexual assault committed upon the prosecutrix.

18. The star witness in the present case regarding the aforesaid

sexual assault committed upon the prosecutrix is the prosecutrix herself.

The prosecutrix was examined as PW-6 at Exh.26. At the time of her

evidence, she was five years old. The learned trial Court, after

interacting with PW-6, recorded a finding that the Court was satisfied

that the child was so innocent that she did not know the difference

between truth and falsehood and, therefore, the oath was not

administered to her.

19. The prosecutrix identified the present appellant, who was

present in the Court, by pointing towards him and calling him "Dongre

Aabaji". She specifically deposed that Dongre Aabaji had applied his

-10- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

"Put" on her vagina. She further deposed that due to the application of

"Put" by the present appellant she was suffering pain in her genitalia.

The evidence of the prosecutrix, who was five years old and had no

reason or enmity against the present appellant to falsely implicate him,

is sufficient in the eyes of law to prove the guilt of the appellant.

20. The appellant has heavily harped upon the alleged

contradiction between the oral complaint, the statement of the

prosecutrix recorded by the Child Welfare Committee, and her evidence

before the learned trial Court regarding the overt act attributed to the

appellant. In her evidence before the learned trial Court, the prosecutrix

deposed that the appellant had applied his "Put" on her vagina. She

further stated that she did not know the meaning of the word "Put".

However, the oral complaint dated 11th November 2018, which is at

record page No.21 (Exh.14), reveals that the prosecutrix had told her

grandmother that the appellant had applied "Kut". A similar statement

is found in her statement recorded by the Child Welfare Committee,

Akola, which is at record page No.14 (Exh.12), wherein reference is

made to the application of "Kut" by the appellant.

21. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is

completely baseless and deserves to be rejected, for the reason that

perusal of the entire evidence reveals that the prosecutrix has

consistently referred to the word "Kut" and not "Put". The reason for

-11- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

such recording in her deposition has been explained by the learned trial

Court in paragraph 43 of the judgment, which reads thus:

43. ...She named the accused as Dongare Aabaji and stated that he applied "Kut" (In Marathi as " कु ट") to her vagina. Due to pandemic of Covid-19 curtain is hanged in front of dais and hence there is some difficulty in hearing. Thus, due to clerical mistake, it was typed as "Put" in the English deposition and written as "पुट" in Marathi deposition of the prosecutrix. But the actual word is "Kut" and it should be understood which has been again came on record from the mouth of prosecutrix..."

22. Thus, the word "Put" recorded in the English deposition is a

clerical mistake, and the prosecutrix has consistently referred to the

application of "Kut" by the appellant, on account of which she was

having pain in her genitals. It is true that neither the prosecutrix nor the

prosecution could explain the exact meaning of the word "Kut".

However, a conjoint reading of the entire evidence leads to the only

conclusion that there is sufficient evidence indicating that the word

"Kut", as used by the prosecutrix in her evidence, refers to the insertion

of finger by the appellant into the genitals of the prosecutrix. Hence,

the present appellant cannot be absolved of criminal liability.

23. It would not be out of place to refer to the provisions of

Section 375(b) of the IPC, which define "rape" and include the

insertion, to any extent, of any object or any part of the body, other than

the penis, into the vagina, urethra, or anus of a woman within the ambit

-12- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

of "rape". The provision of Section 375(b) of the IPC is reproduced

below for ready reference:

"375. Rape. - A man is said to commit "rape" if he- "(a) .......

"(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person;

(c) .........

(d) ........"

Thus, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has proved

that the act committed by the appellant fully satisfies the ingredients of

the offences alleged against him in the charge.

24. The prosecution, in support of PW-6 and to corroborate her

evidence, examined PW-5 Dr. Pravin Gowardhan Ghaywad, who is the

Medical Officer who examined the present appellant. Dr. Ghaywad

specifically deposed on oath that though the present appellant was 70

years old at the time of the incident, upon examination he found that

the appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. He issued a

certificate to that effect, which was proved and marked as Exh.23.

25. Thus, the aforesaid evidence of PW-5 Dr. Ghaywad and the

certificate at Exh.23 substantiate the case of the prosecution that the

present appellant, though 70 years old, was capable of having sexual

intercourse and had sexually assaulted the prosecutrix.

-13- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

26. A perusal of the evidence on record clearly proves that there

was a relationship between the present appellant and the prosecutrix

and, thus, there was complete trust between the appellant and the

family members of the prosecutrix. The appellant was the father-in-law

of Rameshwar Meshram, who is the brother-in-law of the complainant

Suman Meshram. The appellant took undue advantage of the aforesaid

relationship and the trust of the minor prosecutrix and violated the

limits of that relationship by committing sexual assault upon the

prosecutrix, which resulted in her hospitalisation for about eight days.

27. The prosecution case is supported by the independent

witnesses PW-3 Lata Vishal Gharade and PW-4 Nanda Gajanan Raut.

PW-3 Lata Vishal Gharade specifically deposed on oath that on the day

of the incidence she had received a phone call from her maternal

mother-in-law, namely Suman Meshram, i.e., the present complainant,

informing her that the appellant had inserted his finger into the vagina

of the prosecutrix. She further deposed that she went to the police

station along with the complainant and the prosecutrix, where Nanda

Raut and Anita Chimankar were present. The complainant lodged the

report with the police station and thereafter the prosecutrix was sent for

medical examination and was admitted to the hospital for about eight

days.

-14- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

28. One of the striking features of the evidence of PW-3 Lata

Gharade is that she was a distant relative of the present appellant and

still she deposed against him, which substantiates the guilt of the

present appellant. PW-4 Nanda Raut, who is again an independent

witness, has supported the prosecution case and further deposed that

the prosecutrix had informed her that the appellant had inserted his

finger into her vagina.

29. The testimony of PW-3 Lata Vishal Gharade and PW-4

Nanda Gajanan Raut is important with regard to their presence at the

police station and their knowledge about the incidence after visiting the

house of the complainant and receiving information about the

incidence and the registration of the offence. It is true that certain

contradictions and omissions were brought on record during their cross-

examination; however, the fact remains that the aforesaid witnesses are

independent witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and

the deposition of PW-1.

30. PW-1 Suman Meshram, whose evidence is recorded at

Exh.13 (record page No.16), is the grandmother of the prosecutrix. In

her examination-in-chief, she specifically deposed that the appellant is

related to her and that he is the father-in-law of her brother-in-law,

namely Rameshwar Meshram, and resides in the same locality. She

-15- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

further deposed on oath that on the fateful day she had gone to work

and when she returned home at about 6.00 p.m., she found the

prosecutrix weeping. Upon enquiry, the prosecutrix told her that the

appellant had inserted his finger into her vagina. She also told her that

the appellant had applied his "Kut". Thereafter, she along with the

prosecutrix and PW-3 went to the police station and lodged the written

report. The prosecutrix was thereafter medically examined and admitted

to the hospital. Thus, the evidence of the complainant inspires

confidence and she has withstood the cross-examination at the hands of

the present appellant.

31. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has successfully

proved the guilt of the appellant. The appellant was given an

opportunity by the learned trial Court to explain the evidence against

him by recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. In response to Question No.18, as to why the

witnesses had deposed against him, he answered that due to quarrel

between the wife of his brother-in-law and the complainant, they had

falsely deposed against him.

32. Thus, the present appellant has come up with a defence that

due to quarrel between his daughter, Sarita Meshram, and the

complainant, he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned

-16- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

trial Court has specifically dealt with the said defence in paragraph 15 of

the impugned judgment, which reads thus:

"15. P.W. 3 Lata Gharade has admitted that accused is her distant relative. Despite of it, she is deposing against him. There is no evidence on record regarding compromise, or any enmity between two families. During statement recorded under sec. 313 of Cr. P C. the accused has stated that there is quarrel between Sarita Meshram and complainant Suman and hence the report was lodged. It has come on record that complainant had tutored the prosecutrix to give statement before the Child Welfare Committee. This is an empty suggestion. Foundation of the defence remained unfolded till fag end of this matter. Not a single document regarding enmity between two families or criminal nature of Pawan and Lata Gharade is filed on record. Thus, in absence of any documentary evidence on this point, the defence taken by the accused is not believable."

33. A similar finding has been recorded by the learned trial

Court in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:

"30. There is suggestion in the cross-examination that prosecutrix fell into drainage and itching by the prosecutrix by her finger-nail to the genitals and thereby caused injury. However, it is denied by PW. 10 Dr. Madhuri Dhakane (Ex.47). But from this suggestion one fact is clear that defence is having colourful unfolded suggestion. There is suggestion about relation between Sarita and complainant and it is admitted by the complainant and Sarita. There is suggestion that Lata Gharade and Pawan are facing prosecution and it is denied by the witness. However, no documentary evidence is filed on record to that effect by the defence side. There is suggestion about not good relations and enmity, compromise for Rs.6,00,000/- and property dispute between complainant and Sarita and Rameshwar Meshram. But again there is no documentary evidence to rebut this fact u/s 29 & 30 of POCSO Act. I am confident about the fact that entire burden is on the shoulder of prosecution to prove the guilt against accused beyond reasonable doubt and after discharging such burden I am accepting that whether there are

-17- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

such things brought by the defence to rebut the presumption and the answer is no. This is what the strategy of striking defence story which found lot of suggestions by the defence side during cross-examination of complainant PW. 1 Suman."

Thus, in our considered opinion, there is no substance in the

defence raised by the appellant and the same was rightly rejected by the

learned trial Court.

34. Mr. Ajay Londhe, learned counsel for the appellant, has

argued that the evidence of PW-6 has no credence and should be

rejected by this Court as her evidence was not taken on oath.

35. The learned trial Court has specifically dealt with the

aforesaid objection in paragraph 34 of the impugned judgment, which

reads thus:

"34. ...In consonance with the statement made before the Magistrate by the prosecutrix, in this case the prosecutrix is not examined on oath. It is necessary to mention here that at the time of adducing evidence, the prosecutrix was aged about 5 years and studying in I std. At the time of alleged incident, she was aged about 3 years and 8 months. She has knowledge about place and time. She has stated that she can depose before the Court. She knows the truth, but do not understand about falsehood. Under such circumstances, the oath is not administered to the prosecutrix....."

Thus, the aforesaid objection of the present appellant is

unsustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby rejected.

36. Mr. Ajay Londhe, learned counsel for the appellant, has also

strongly argued with regard to PW-6 that she is a tutored witness and

-18- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

that she was inspired by her grandmother to give the statement. Hence,

according to him, her evidence could not have been relied upon by the

learned trial Court.

37. The learned trial Court, while dealing with the aforesaid

objection of the present appellant, has recorded its findings in detail

regarding PW-6 being a tutored witness in paragraph 44 of the

impugned judgment, which reads thus:

"44. There is no detail cross-examination to the prosecutrix, whereas the defence has taken detail cross-examination of other witnesses. The reason is that, they are satisfied with their defence that prosecutrix is tutored witness, when they succeeded to bring on record that as per instructions of grand-mother, she (prosecutrix) is deposing before the Court. But this is not the reason to conclude that prosecutrix is tutored witness. If she is tutored witness, she definitely might have not answered to other questions regarding spot of incident, with whom same miss- deeds has been done, what was the consequences of narration to the grand-mother, why she failed to narrate about the incident of insertion of finger to the complainant; all these questions were satisfactorily answered by the prosecutrix. Therefore, simple version of the prosecutrix about tutoring is not concluding to determine her entire testimony is tutored one. Not only this, but a tutored witness could not state about spot of incident and that after the incident she narrated the incident to her grand- mother. Even if entire evidence of prosecutrix is thrown away, then the question arise what was the reason for her to narrate the incident to grand-mother, what was actually happened and why there was inflammation to her genital, why she was urgently referred to medical examination after lodging of report at about 4.00 A.M. If there had been any fallacy in case of prosecution, this urgency might have not been noted down. There is no answer to these questions from the defence side. For all these reasons I could not dare to say that testimony of prosecutrix is tutored one."

-19- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

38. Further, Mr. Ajay Londhe, learned counsel for the appellant,

has tried to create doubt about the medico-legal examination report of

sexual violence by arguing that the aforesaid report reveals that the

history of the assault was not obtained by the doctor from the patient

but from her grandmother.

39. PW-10 Dr. Madhuri Dhakane, in her evidence, has

specifically deposed that at the time of medical examination the

prosecutrix was not in a position to give history and was suffering from

painful urination. She further stated that the prosecutrix was suffering

from pain and, therefore, was not in a position to narrate the history,

and hence her grandmother had given the history.

40. In view of such explanation given by the doctor, who

examined the prosecutrix, the aforesaid objection raised by the learned

counsel for the appellant is recorded only for the purpose of rejection.

41. Mr. Ajay Londhe, learned counsel for the appellant, has also

tried to create doubt about the authenticity of the written report by

arguing that the aforesaid report was not lodged by the present

complainant. According to him, she was not the author of the aforesaid

report and, therefore, the learned rrial Court could not have relied upon

such written report.

-20- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

42. The learned trial Court has dealt with the aforesaid objection

regarding the authorship of the written report in paragraph 31 of the

impugned judgment, which reads thus:

"31. In the examination-in-chief what the evidence of complainant transpires is also important to discuss. As per her evidence, she is studied upto II Std., she could not read and write and can only sign. This is about her literacy. Under such circumstances nobody can expect that she should be able to lodge written report, as contemplated under sec. 154 of Cr. P С. Therefore, the written report found to be lodged as prescribed under sec. 154 of Cr. P C, reduction into writing on oral information is also another process permitted by sec. 154 of Cr. PC. Therefore, what remedy under procedural law that has been done by the complainant while lodging report. Thus, there is nothing to disbelieve the report Ex.14. This report has been written and counter signed by Lata Gharade, having marginal endorsement of API Shri SP Salunke, to register the offence under given sections of IPC and POCSO Act. Therefore, who scribe the report is less important than lodging of report under provision of sec. 154 of Cr. P C. The complainant has explained her relations with Lata Gharade. She also deposed that Anita and Nanda were present at the time of lodging of report, they are friends of Lata Gharade and are Social Workers...."

43. In view of the above, the aforesaid objection is unsustainable

in the eyes of law and was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court.

Thus, in our considered opinion, the learned trial Court has considered

the entire oral and documentary evidence produced on record by the

prosecution in accordance with law. There is no perversity in the

findings recorded by the learned trial Court and the present appeal lacks

merit and deserves to be dismissed.

-21- APPEAL.349.2021.J.odt

44. Accordingly, we answer the Point Nos.(ii) to (iv) in the

affirmative and Point No.(v) in the negative. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed in answer to the Point No.(vi).

                                 (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)                      (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)




                               Vijaykumar




Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/03/2026 16:27:37