Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V.KOTWAL, SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ.
Rahul Ravindra Barai - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 2023 With Interim Application No.3504 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No.976 of 2023 With Interim Application No.3191 of 2023 With Criminal Appeal No.976 of 2024 With Interim Application No.4960 of 2024
Decided On : 13-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidated appeals against joint convictions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. abduction, gang rape, murder, body disposal. (Para 6) |
| 3. prosecution witnesses and total denial defence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. body and sim discovery initiates probe. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. arrests and discovery-based recoveries. (Para 13 , 15 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. forensic, medical confirm assault, strangulation. (Para 16 , 17 , 21) |
| 7. basic facts of murder proved. (Para 22) |
| 8. accused 3 induced victim from home. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. victim disclosed rapes to confidant. (Para 26) |
| 10. accused occupied flat with victim. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 11. bag purchase receipt links accused. (Para 29) |
| 12. drivers confirm bag transport to pune. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 13. cctv corroborates accused movements. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 14. test identification parade identifications reliable. (Para 38) |
| 15. cdr links phones to locations. (Para 41) |
| 16. arguments on circumstantial evidence sufficiency. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 17. victim confinement by accused established. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 18. statements admissible under evidence act section 32(1). (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 19. matching ropes prove involvement. (Para 56 , 57) |
| 20. travel identifications confirm complicity. (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 21. cdr completes guilt chain. (Para 61 , 62) |
| 22. gang rape by common intention. (Para 63) |
| 23. life sentences for remainder upheld. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
JUDGMENT :
SARANG V.KOTWAL, J.
1. All these three Appeals are decided by this common judgment because they arise out of the same impugned judgment and order dated 26.5.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act & Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Special Case Child Prot. No.246/2014. For convenience, the Appellants are referred to by their original status as the accused in the trial.
2. Criminal Appeal No.1165/2023 is preferred by the original accused No.1 Rahul Barai, Criminal Appeal No.976/2023 is preferred by the original accused No.2 Jishan Kureshi and Criminal Appeal No.976/2024 is preferred by the original accused No.3 Santosh Jugdar.
3. The learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced all of them for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 363 read with 120-B, 366-A read with 120-B, 376-D read with 120-B, 302 read with 120-B, 201 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’). They were sentenced as follows :
i. For commission of the offence punishable under Section 363 read with 120-B of IPC, they were sentenced to suffer RI for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for six months each;
ii. For commission of the offence punishable under Section 366-A read with 120-B of IPC, they were sentenced to suffer RI for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for six months each;
iii. For commission of the offence punishable under Section 376-D read with 120-B of IPC, they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for six months each;
iv. For commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120-B of IPC, they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for six months each;
v. For commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 read with 120-B of IPC, they were sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for six months each;
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. They were given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the punishment under Sections 363, 366-A and 201 of IPC.
4. There was one more accused i.e. accused No.4 Shivkumar Thather
Victim's statements detailing assaults admissible under Evidence Act s.32(1) as circumstances of death in circumstantial gang rape-murder case; complete chain via forensic, CDR, identifications prove....
Sentence - Kidnapping and abduction - Sentence cannot be reduced as Manner of commission of offence was cruel.
Credibility of victim testimony in sexual assault cases is paramount; delays and minor discrepancies in reporting do not invalidate the prosecution's case when strong corroborative evidence exists.
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
Conviction for gang rape can be upheld solely based on the victim's reliable testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, regardless of inconsistencies or lack of immediate identification of the accu....
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
