Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
Sagar Gautam Sable – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2024, Criminal Application No. 2509 of 2025
Decided On : 12-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and sentences imposed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. victim's abduction and reporting. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. victim's age and applicability of ipc sections. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 4. details of the victim's interaction with the accused. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. defensive arguments regarding kidnapping. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. application of ipc on sexual offences. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. testimony assessment and conviction considerations. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. defense and prosecution's assertions. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 9. questioning the evidence on sexual assault. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 10. conclusions on sexual harassment and assault. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 11. assessment of cross-examination outcomes. (Para 40 , 41) |
| 12. final order and conclusions. (Para 42) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
1. Heard respective learned counsels.
2. By that instant appeal, the original accused/appellant has challenged his conviction awarded by, Special Judge (POCSO), Aurangabad, in Special Case (POCSO) No. 383/2021, dated 12.12.2023, by which, the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (herein after would be referred to as ‘the IPC’ for sake of brevity), and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
3. The appellant was also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 3 76-AB of the IPC and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months.
4. The appellant was also convicted under Section 354-A (2) of the IPC and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two years.
5. He was also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 4 (2) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after would be referred to as ‘the Act of 2012’ for sake of brevity) and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months.
6. He was also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the Act of 2012, and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. All these sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
7. Furthermore, a fine of Rs. 56,000/- was imposed upon the appellant, out of which Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be paid to the victim under Section 4 (3) of the Act of 2012.
8. A criminal law was set in a motion on the basis of information supplied by PW-2 / mother of victim who was examined by the prosecution at exhibit 24. PW-2 has, in her evidence, deposed that at the relevant time, she was residing along with her father, mother and three daughters. The victim of the crime / PW-1 is her daughter. The incident took place prior to two-three days of lodging first information report. On that day, when PW-1 had been to attend her work at about 10:00 am and returned at about 01:00 pm to 01:30 pm, at that time, mother of PW-2 met her on the way and disclosed that victim was missing from the house. PW-2, thereafter, visited various places in order to search her daughter but was unsuccessful. She then made a telephonic call to her relatives and since victim was not traced, she filed a report with the police station.
9. The said information culminated in registration of First Information Report below exhibit 26 dated 11.10.2021, for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC, against the unknown persons. Consequently, criminal law was set in a motion.
10. According to PW-2 / mother, after two days to lodging of report i.e. 13.10.2021, victim was found. According to her, two to three women along with mother of accused and accused brought her daughter
The conviction for kidnapping under IPC was upheld while that for rape was overturned due to insufficient evidence of penetration, emphasizing the necessity of witness credibility and evidence standa....
The appellate court upheld the victim's minority and the accused's guilt for kidnapping and sexual assault, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn ac....
Conviction under IPC 363, 376 and POCSO Section 4 upheld for enticing minor (under 18) by suicide threat and penetrative sexual assault; consent immaterial; victim's corroborated testimony and medica....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the victim's age beyond all reasonable doubt and the reliability of the victim's testimony in c....
The judgment reinforces the legal principle that the exploitation of a position of trust, particularly by a teacher towards a minor, constitutes a serious offense under both the IPC and the POCSO Act....
The prosecution must establish the victim's age and the accused's intent beyond reasonable doubt in cases of sexual offences, and mere allegations without corroborative evidence are insufficient for ....
The reliability of the victim's testimony and the presumption under section 29 of the POCSO Act were crucial in establishing the accused's guilt.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
