2026:BHC-AUG:2443 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 629 OF 2022 Ravindra @ Ritesh Bapu Nikumb Age: 24 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Derabardi, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon ..APPELLANT VERSUS

1. State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector City Police Station, Chalisgaon, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon

2. XYZ Since deceased, through her father ..RESPONDENTS ....

Mr. A.R. Syed, Advocate for appellant Mrs. M.N. Ghanekar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 – State Mr. R.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for residing no.2 (appointed)

....

CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 17^th JANUARY, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT :

. Heard.

Prelude Of The Case

2. The appellant/original accused has approached this Court challenging his conviction awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court), Jalgaon in Special (POCSO) Case No. 11 of 2018, by which he was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 2012’ for the sake of convenience) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.In default, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. The appellant was also convicted for commission of offence under Section 6 of the act of 2012 and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

4. The appellant was also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1989’ for the sake of convenience) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. The F.I.R. in the case in hand was registered at the instance of victim of crime on the basis of which Crime No. 62 of 2018 dated 24^th March, 2018 for commission of offences punishable under Section 376(n) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4, 3(a), 4, 5(j)(ii) of the Act of 2012 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act of 1989/2015.

6. It was the case of the complainant that prior to 17^th March, 2018 in the house situated in Dist. Jalgaon, the appellant committed rape repeatedly upon her which was an offence of Penetrative Sexual Assault defined under the Act of 2012

7. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested on 24^th March, 2018. According to the case of prosecution, the victim of crime was 17 years and 4 months, whereas the accused was 24 years of age at the relevant time.

8. It is necessary to mention here that the victim of crime had died on 01^st August, 2021 during the course of trial, due to which her statement was not recorded.

9. As the investigation proceeded, the DNA samples of the fetus of the victim were collected, so also the DNA samples of the appellant. It was opined that the appellant was the biological father of the fetus.

10. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the appellant was charge- sheeted. The charges were framed against him, below Exhibit 17 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon for commission of offense punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C., so also under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 2012 as well as under Section 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of the Act of 2012. The appellant was also charged for commission of offense punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act of 1989. Since the appellant did not plead guilty, the prosecution, in order to bring home the charge, has examined total twelve witnesses. The accused answered the questions put to him while conducting inquiry under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His defense was of total denial and false implication, in an examination under section 313 of Code of Criminal Proce