apeal-743-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.743 OF 2021

Shri Vikas Shantaram Shinde

]

Age: 28 years, Occup: Labourer,

]

R/o. Kurtade, Shindewadi, Taluka,

]

District Ratnagiri, Maharashtra

]

(Presently at Nagpur Central Prision)

]..

Appellant

(Original Accused)

v/s.

1.

The State of Maharashtra

]

(Through Ratnagiri Gramin Police ]

Station)

]

2.

Smt. Priyanka Prakash Shinde

]

Age 40 years, Occup: Agriculturist ]

R/o. Kurtade, Shindewadi, Taluka

]

District Ratnagiri, Maharashtra.

]..

Respondents.

Mr. Amit Mane, for the Appellant.

Mr. Suraj S. Hulke, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

Ms. Grishma Lad, for Respondent No.2.

CORAM: VINAY JOSHI, J.

DATED : 8^th MARCH, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order

of conviction dated 9^th October, 2019 passed in Special Case No.4

of 2018 whereby the Appellant was held guilty for the offence

under Sections 376(2)(i)(j)(n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC)

and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Trial Court has

imposed sentence to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years

S.R.JOSHI

1 of 9

SMITA

RAJNIKANT

JOSHI

Digitally

signed by

SMITA

RAJNIKANT

JOSHI

Date:

2022.03.11

16:44:48

+0530

apeal-743-2021.doc

and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- with default clause, for the offence

punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. No separate

punishment was awarded for the offence of rape by virtue of

Section 42 of the POCSO Act. For the offence punishable under

Section 506 of the IPC, accused was sentenced to suffer Rigorous

Imprisonment for 1 year along with fine of Rs.5,000. The Trial

Court directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2

The accused was in jail during the trial as well as

during pendency of this appeal.

3

The prosecution case can be stated in brief that the

victim- girl aged 13 years 8 months, was a school going

intellectually disabled child of informant lady. The victim-girl

missed her menstrual cycle somewhere in the month of June,

2017. After few months i.e. on 10^th November, 2017, informant-

mother took her to the hospital for said purpose. During

examination, it was diagnosed that victim was pregnant. On

enquiry, victim-girl disclosed about the incident of forcible sexual

intercourse committed by accused on several occasions.

Immediately victim’s mother lodged report to the police on the

very day i.e. on 10^th November, 2017. On the basis of said report,

police registered crime and carried investigation. During course of

investigation, panchanama regarding place of occurrence was

drawn. Clothes of the victim were seized. Accused was arrested.

Birth certificate of victim was collected. Samples were extracted for

DNA profile. During mean time, the victim delivered a male child

on 10^th March, 2018. Again samples of new born baby were

S.R.JOSHI

2 of 9

apeal-743-2021.doc

extracted for DNA testing. After completing the usual formalities of

investigation, final report was came to be filed.

4

In order to establish the guilt, prosecution has

examined as many as 15 witnesses. Prosecution also banks upon

several documents. On the basis of oral as well as documentary

evidence, the Court below held that victim was a ‘child’ within the

meaning of Section 2 (d) of the POCSO Act, and the prosecution

has proved the offence of aggravated form of penetrative sexual

assault. The Trial Court has passed the aforesaid sentences for the

proved offences.

5

Heard learned Counsel Shri Mane, for the Appellant as

well as Mr. Shukle, learned APP for the State and Ms. Lad, learned

Counsel for Respondent No.2-victim. Perused entire record as well

as reported judgments cited on behalf of Appellant/Accused.

6

Since the accused is charged under the provisions of

POCSO Act, it is incumbent on the prosecution to establish that the

victim was a child as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO

Act. The defence has not c