2024:BHC-NAG:13895 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO . 252 OF 20 20 APPELLANT : Kiran @ Shekhar S/o Rajendra Warhade, Aged about 20 years, Occu. Labour, R/o Kalmajapur, Tah. Chandur Railway, Dist. Amravati.

VERSUS RESPONDENT : State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Chandur Railway, Dist. Amravati.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. R. M. Daga, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ganesh Umale, A.P.P. for the respondent /State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATED : DECEM BER 03 , 2024 .

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 19.03.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376-AB, 376(2)(i), 354 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 10 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act” for short). He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer RI for six months for the offence punishable under Section 376-AB of the IPC. No separate sentence is awarded for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) and 354 of the IPC and under Sections 4 and 10 of the POCSO Act.

2. BACKGROUND FACTS :-

The informant is the mother of the victim girl. The prosecution case, which can be unfolded from the report (Exh.16) and other materials is that the victim on the date of the incident i.e. 22.08.2019, was three years old. The informant is resident of Kalamjapur, Tah. Chandur Rly., Dist. Amravati. On 22.08.2019 at about 11.00 a.m., she had returned from her mother’s house. She was waiting at Chandur Railway bus stand. The victim and her eight month old son were with her. At that time, she saw the appellant proceeding on his motorcycle. The informant called him. On an inquiry by the informant, the appellant told that he was going to his agricultural field. He was having a sickle for doing work in the field. The informant requested him to search for her husband. The appellant agreed to do the same and told her to wait near the shop of Gopal Florist. When this dialog was on between the informant and the appellant, the victim sat on the motorcycle of the appellant. The informant was reluctant to allow her daughter to accompany the appellant. However, the appellant told her that he would return back after taking search of her husband. The victim, therefore, accompanied the appellant on motorcycle. The informant then went near the shop of Gopal Florist. Her brother-in- law was there. The appellant left the spot with her daughter to search for her husband. After half an hour, the husband of the informant came there. On inquiry by the husband, the informant told that the victim had gone with the appellant to search him. The husband thereafter went to search the appellant, but he could not find the appellant and the victim. He, therefore, came back to the informant.

3. It is stated that at about 12.00 noon, the appellant returned along with the victim. The victim was crying. Her forehead, hands and legs were smeared with dust. She had sustained injuries on her forehead. On inquiry by the informant with the victim, she told her that “dada ni padle, dada ni marle”. On inquiry with the appellant by the informant, he told that his motorcycle slipped and they fell down.

The informant believed the appellant and went home. However, she noticed that the knickers of the victim had come out of her one leg. It is stated that at about 1.30 p.m., one boy by name Saurabh Bhimrao Sirsam came to her house and disclosed that on 22.08.2019 at about 11.30 a.m., he saw that in the field, the appellant had removed the knickers of her daughter and slept on her. He told