[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prashant Ramdas Thakre vs State Of Maharshtra Thr Pso Ps Wani Dist ... on 30 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5022
1/6 24-appp 82-26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.82 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2026
Prashant Ramdas Thakre Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.M.Daga, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant.
Ms.Sneha Dhote, APP for the State.
Ms.Garima Jain Advocate (appointed) for Respondent
no.2/non-applicant.
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE : 30/03/2026
1) This is an Application for suspension of sentence imposed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, District Yavatmal in
Special Case Child Protection No.72 of 2023 convicting the Appellant as
follows:-
1] Accused Prashant Ramdas Thakre, R/o.
Naygaon Khurd, Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal at present
residing at District Prison, Yavatmal being Under
Trial Prisoner is hereby found guilty and convicted
for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n),
506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act
2012 vide Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal
procedure.
2] Accused Prashant Ramdas Thakre is sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the
offence under Section 4 of Protection of Children
Kavita
2/6 24-appp 82-26
From Sexual Offences Act 2012 and shall pay fine
of Rs.7,000/- (Rs. Seven Thousand only), in default
to suffer R.I. for 06 months.
3] Accused Prashant Ramdas Thakre is sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years for the
offence under Section 6 of Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act 2012 and shall pay fine
of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only), in default
to suffer R.I. for 06 months.
4] Accused Prashant Ramdas Thakre is sentenced
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 02 years for the
offence under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code and
shall pay fine of Rs.3,000/-(Rs. Three Thousand
only), in default to suffer R.I. for 01 month.
5] In view of punishment imposed under Section 4
and 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act 2012 in the light of provisions of 42 of
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act
2012, no separate punishment under Section
376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code is imposed upon
accused Prashant Ramdas Thakre.
6] All sentences as mentioned above shall run
concurrently.
7] As accused is in jail custody since the date of
his arrest till date, set off be granted to the accused
from the date of arrest of accused i.e. 04/07/2023
till date vide Section 428 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
8] Fine amount if recovered by the accused be
paid entirely to the victim P.W.1 towards
compensation after appeal period is over.
9] Recommendation is made to the District Legal
Services Authority, Yavatmal to pay compensation
to the victim P.W.1 within the ambit of Section
357(A)(2)of the Code of Criminal procedure 1973
and the copy of the judgment be forwarded to
District Legal Services Authority, Yavatmal for
further process.
10] As no muddemal is produced during trial, no
need to pass any order regarding it.
Kavita
3/6 24-appp 82-26
11] Copy of this judgment shall immediately be
given to accused free of cost vide Section 363(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
12] Copy of this judgment be forwarded and sent to
the District Magistrate, Yavatmal vide Section 365
of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
13] Accused is apprised of provision of appeal
against this judgment. (Pronounced and dictated in
presence of accused and learned APP for the state
in open Court today.)
2) It is the case of the prosecution that, the Victim who was the
child aged 17 years was subjected to sexual assault by the Appellant,
firstly at her house and thereafter at the house of the Appellant. They
both were known to each other and belonged to one community. The
Appellant threatened her not to disclose the act committed by him on
her to anybody. The Victim missed her menstrual cycle and suffered
omitting. The Victim's mother took her to the hospital for examination.
The Victim was found pregnant. The Victim disclosed the incident to her
mother. The report was lodged with the Wani Police Station and Crime
No.626 of 2023 came to be registered against the Appellant for the
offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences, Act, 2012. After the investigation, the charge-sheet
was filed and after the trial, the Appellant came to be convicted and
sentenced as above.
3) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that,
the prosecution failed to establish that, the Victim was the child. The
history given to the Doctor, who examined the Victim for the first time
was that of relationship. The evidence of the Medical Officer, who
examined the Victim subsequent to First Information Report, shows that,
Kavita
4/6 24-appp 82-26
name of the Appellant was not disclosed by the Victim. Though the
samples for DNA were taken, the DNA report was not brought on record
by the prosecution. Only after the Victim was found to be pregnant, the
report was lodged. The Appellant is having good case on merits and
therefore, the sentence be suspended.
4) It is submitted by the learned APP that, by bringing on record
the birth certificate of the Victim, it was proved that, the Victim was
below 18 years of age and was thus a child. The Medical evidence on
record supports the version of the Victim. The learned Trail Court
recorded the conviction and sentenced on the basis of the evidence on
record and therefore, no case for suspension was made out.
5) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Victim that, by
bringing on record, the birth certificate, it was proved by the prosecution
that, the Victim was the child. In such cases, the delay in recording the
matter to the Police is not fatal. The Appellant is behind bars for a short
period, therefore the Application cannot be considered.
6) With the assistance of both the sides, perused the evidence on
record. To prove the age of the Victim, the prosecution relied on the
birth certificate to show that, the Victim was 17 years of age. The said
certificate was exhibited in the evidence of the Victim. It is the Victim,
who deposed that, the contents of the said certificate was based on the
official record. Undisputedly, the Victim was not the author of the said
birth certificate. No competent witness was examined to prove as to on
what basis the date of birth mentioned in the said certificate was
recorded after a period of two years from the birth. The said birth
certificate was issued after the FIR was lodged. Thus, prima facie, the
evidence on record may not be sufficient to establish that, the Victim
was the child.
Kavita
5/6 24-appp 82-26
7) The Victim's testimony shows that, the sexual act by the
Appellant was committed on her several times, when she was alone at
her residence. Only when the Victim omitted, her mother took her to the
hospital and she was found pregnant and thereafter, the crime was
lodged. In the evidence of the Doctor (PW-4), who examined the Victim
it has come that, the Victim denied of sexual intercourse with anybody.
Undisputedly, the DNA report is not on record to show that, the
Appellant was the biological father of the fetus. The evidence of the
Medical Officer (PW-6), who examined the Victim after lodging of FIR,
shows that, in the history narrated by the Victim, the name of Appellant
was not mentioned by him.
8) The above aspects of the matter, shows that, the Appellant has
arguable case on merits and the possibility of success in the Appeal
cannot be ruled out. The Appellant is behind bars from 04.07.2023.
There is no possibility that, the Appeal would be heard finally in the
near future. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
[i] Criminal Application is allowed.
[ii] The sentence imposed upon the Applicant by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, District Yavatmal in Special
Case Child Protection No.72 of 2023 for the offence punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n),506 of the Indian Penal Code and for
the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act,2012 (POCSO) is hereby
suspended till the final disposal of Criminal Appeal.
[iii] The Applicant be released on P.R.bond of Rs.25,000/-
[Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only], with one surety in the like
amount.
Kavita
6/6 24-appp 82-26
[iv] Bail before the Trial Court.
[v] The Applicant shall co-operate in the early hearing of
the Criminal Appeal.
[vi] Fees of the learned appointed Advocate for
Respondent No.2/non-applicant is quantified at Rs.7,500/-
(Rupees seven thousand five hundred only). The same be paid
accordingly by the High Court Legal Services Authority.
[vii] Application stands disposed off.
JUDGE
Signed by: Kavita P Kavita
Tayade
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 30/03/2026 18:47:09
