1.ia.455.2021 in apeal 99.2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 455 OF 2021

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2021

Raju @ Dashi Imansing Tamang

…

Applicant/appellant

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

…

Respondents

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

Mr. Sachin Deokar for the applicant/appellant.

Mr. Arfan Sait-APP for the respondent-State.

Ms. Sayali Dhuru, advocate (appointed) for respondent no.3

Mr. Yuvraj Dhole advocate (appointed) for respondent no. 2.

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

CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATED :MARCH 15, 2022.

P.C. :

This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant

of bail pending Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2021.

2.

The applicant has been convicted vide judgment and order

dated 8^th December 2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Pune

for offence under section 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from

Sexual offences Act, 2012 and section 376 of Indian Penal Code. He

has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The

applicant is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 10 of

POCSO Act.

varsha

1 of 7

VARSHA

DEEPAK

GAIKWAD

Digitally signed by

VARSHA DEEPAK

GAIKWAD

Date: 2022.03.23

10:58:49 +0530

1.ia.455.2021 in apeal 99.2021.doc

3.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant

received information that the victim has been sexually abused. The

complainant is a social worker, she visited spot of incident. Hence, the

First Information Report was registered. The applicant was arrested.

On completing investigation charge-sheet was filed.

4.

Learned advocate for the applicant submit as follows:-

i.

The applicant is in custody for 3 years and 8 months.

ii. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.

iii. The identity of the applicant as the person who has

sexually assaulted the victim is not proved.

iv. The Test Identification parade was not conducted.

v.

The accused was not identified in the Court.

vi. The victim has also disclosed that she was also

sexually assaulted by one Prachi.

vii. The victim has not disclosed about the act of

fingering by the accused in her statement.

viii.The lady from whom the information was received,

namely Alka Gunjal is not examined by the

prosecution.

varsha

2 of 7

1.ia.455.2021 in apeal 99.2021.doc

ix. The evidence of PW.1 is in the nature ofhearsay.

x. The mother of the victim was not examined by the

prosecution.

xi. The F.I.R. was registered by PW.1 in the absence of

victim, mother of victim and Alka Gunjal for whom

the information was received.

xii. The medical evidence does not support the case of

prosecution.

xiii.In the statement recorded under section 164 of

Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she was

sexually assaulted by one Sathe.

5.

Learned APP submit that there is substantial evidence

against the applicant. On the basis of evidence, the trial Court has

convicted the applicant. The victim was minor, aged about 13 years.

Medical evidence supports the prosecution case. The complainant had

received the information that the person who was employed as ‘

cook’

on the 3^rd floor of the building had subjected the victim to sexual

assault. The name of the accused has been disclosed in the statement

of witnesses.

6.

Learned advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 supported

the submission of learned APP. It is submitted that there is no reason to

varsha

3 of 7

1.ia.455.2021 in apeal 99.2021.doc

disbelieve the version of the victim. There is sufficient evidence to

establish that the accused had subjected the victim to sexual assault.

The victim was minor. The evidence adduced by the prosecution

establishes the fact that the applicant was involved in the offences.

7.

The first information report was lodged by PW.1. She is a

social worker. She is working for Foundation for Child Protection.

According to her, information was received about sexual assault on a

child at Budhwar Peth. The complainant and others went to the spot.

They met Alka Gunjal. She inf