Dismissed

Sakharam Mahadev Bolye v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Jan 2017APPA/1359/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for bail, the Bombay High Court rejected the plea. The applicant was convicted of rape under the IPC and POCSO Act for ravishing a four-year-old child, sentenced to life imprisonment. The court noted extra-judicial confessions and corroborated medical evidence showing hymenal rupture, leading to a refusal of bail with expedited appeal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; hearing of the main appeal expedited.

Sakharam Mahadev Bolye Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1. cri appa 1359-16.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1359 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2017

¶5

Sakharam Mahadev Bolye .. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Appearances Mr. Ramdas Hake-Patil a/w Mr. Ashish Alaspurkar i/by Mr. R.R. Chilte Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State

¶10

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶11

REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : JANUARY 27, 2017.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

The applicant - original accused has been convicted

¶16

under Sections 376(2)(f)(i) of IPC and under Sections 5(m)(n)

¶17

r/w 6 and 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act. For the offences under

¶18

POCSO Act, the applicant has been sentenced to life

¶19

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4

¶20

1. cri appa 1359-16.doc

¶21

imprisonment. The applicant is now seeking bail.

¶22

It is the prosecution case that the applicant committed

¶23

rape on PW 3 who is the victim girl. She was about four years old at the time of the incident. The evidence of the victim girl shows that on the day of the incident, the appellant committed rape on her. The evidence of the victim

¶24

girl is corroborated by the evidence of her mother i.e PW 1 Laxmi.

¶25

PW 1 Laxmi has stated that the incident took place on 3.11.2014. Her daughter returned home at about 2.00 p.m. She was crying. She was unable to discharge urine. When she asked her daughter what had happened, her daughter narrated the incident to her which shows that the applicant committed rape on her. When PW 1 Laxmi tried to remove the underwear of her daughter, she found some sticky substance on her private part towards the leg. The mother of the victim girl further stated that she questioned the

¶26

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4

¶27

1. cri appa 1359-16.doc

¶28

applicant. Thereafter, a meeting was called in the village. In the meeting, the applicant told that he had committed rape on the daughter of Laxmi. Thereafter, on 16.11.2014, another meeting was called in the village. In that meeting about 50 persons were present. At that time, the applicant stated that he had committed rape on the daughter of Laxmi.

¶29

The fact that the applicant made an extra judicial confession before the villagers is also stated by PW 5 Manohar and PW 6 Kashiram. PW 5 Manohar has stated that on 16.11.2014, a meeting was called in the village. In the meeting, they asked the applicant that when the victim girl came to his house, that time the applicant committed rape on her? The applicant replied that a mistake was committed by him. Thereafter on 24.11.2014, another meeting was called in the temple of the village. In that meeting also, the applicant confessed that he had committed rape on the victim girl. The evidence of PW 6 Kashiram is on similar lines as that of PW 5 Manohar.

¶30

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4

¶31

1. cri appa 1359-16.doc

¶32

The fact that the applicant committed rape on the victim girl is further corroborated by the medical evidence. The victim girl was only four years old at the time of the incident. The evidence of PW 8 Dr. Patil shows that the victim girl was not capable of penetrative sexual intercourse but her hymen was ruptured. Looking to all these facts, we are not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the application for bail is rejected, however, the hearing of appeal is expedited.

¶33

[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶34

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4

Sakharam Mahadev Bolye v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakharam Mahadev Bolye v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayant Narishn Bahulikar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Tukaram Nimbalkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Tukaram Nimbalkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Birudeo Rohidas Vaidhya and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Birudeo Rohidas Vaidhya and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Sukumar Kallappa Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra