SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 804

A.S.GADKARI
Shivaji Ramchandra Tirlotkar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Smt. Anjali Patil.
For the Respondent: Smt. Sharmila Kaushik.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant has questioned correctness of Judgment and Order dated 24th June, 2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, under the POCSO Act, Greater Mumbai in POCSO Special Case No.158 of 2016, convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offcences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”) and is sentenced to suffer maximum rigorous imprisonment for 15 years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and to pay a total fine amount of Rs.56,000/-.

2. Heard Smt. Patil, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Smt. Kaushik, learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused entire record.

3. The victim in the present crime was aged about 5 years on the date of lodgment of the crime and with a view to protect her identity and in consonance with the provisions of Section 228(A) of the IPC and Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act, the detailed narration of the facts and other details disclosing identity of the victim and/or her mother are hereinafter avoided.

4. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, the Appellant was neighbour of the informant i.e. the mother (PW

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top