2026:BHC-AS:2309-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1133 OF 2023 Ramesh Dada Kalel … Appellant vs.

The State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents Mr. Tapan Thatte a/w. Mr. Vivek Arote and Mr. Akshay Dingale, i/b.

Mr.Dayanand Mane for appellant.

Dr. Dhanalakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, APP for respondent No.1-State.

Ms. P. S. Potdar (appointed through legal aid) for respondent No.2.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ RESERVED ON: 16^th DECEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 19^th JANUARY, 2026 JUDGMENT: (Per Justice Manish Pitale, J):

. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Court of Extra Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel-Raigad (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court). By the said judgment and order, the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for remainder of life under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and to pay fine of ₹ 50,000, in default of which he shall undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of one month.

2. The challenge to the impugned judgment and order on behalf of the appellant, has two facets. Firstly, the findings rendered by the Trial Court have been challenged on merits and secondly, it is claimed that there has been a fundamental procedural error committed by the Trial Court from the stage of framing of charge to passing the final order of conviction and sentence, which has caused grave prejudice to the appellant, resulting in failure of justice. On both counts, it is claimed that the impugned judgment and order, deserves to be set aside. Before appreciating the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, it would be necessary to refer to the prosecution case in brief.

3. The first informant in the present case, is PW1-Ashabai, who is the mother of the victim-PW4. At the point in time when the offence was committed, the victim was said to be 13 years old. According to the first informant-PW1-Ashabai, on 29.10.2018, her daughter i.e. the victim-PW4 had gone to school as usual. It was claimed that the victim was suffering from epilepsy and therefore, she used to return home at around noon to take a tablet and then, she used to go back to school. On the aforesaid date, the victim-PW4 is said to have come home to take medicine at around 12:30 p.m. and after taking medicine, she left for school. But, when the younger daughter of PW1-Ashabai returned from school at about 02:30 p.m., she informed that the victim had not reached school after taking medicine. Hence, PW1-Ashabhai visited the school along with her younger daughter, when the class teacher confirmed the fact that the victim had not come back to school. Thereupon, PW1-Ashabai started searching for the victim in the locality along with others. Her husband joined her in the evening, after returning back from work and it is claimed that the appellant i.e. the accused also joined them in searching for the victim. But, PW4-victim could not be found.

4. On the next day i.e. on 30.10.2018, the victim is said to have returned home at about 05:00 a.m. It is claimed that when PW1-

Ashabai took her daughter-PW4 in confidence, she informed that the appellant, who was their neighbour, had forcibly taken the victim in his house and committed rape on her. It is alleged that he had threatened the victim with dire consequences and it was further claimed that the victim was kept trapped inside the bedbox and that through the night, the appellant committed the aforesaid act three times upon the victim.

5. On the basis of the information given by the victim-PW4, the first informant-PW1 (Ashabai) reached the police station for registration of FIR. The victim was sent for medical examination in the evening on 30.10.2018. The appellant was arrested. The investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed.

6. Charge was framed against the appellant for offences under Sections 376(2)(i) and