Dismissed

Shivnath Ramprasad Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Feb 2018APPA/171/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application seeking suspension of sentence and bail, the High Court of Bombay rejected the plea. The applicant, convicted for offences under Section 377 IPC and POCSO, argued false implication. The court held that the nature of the crime involving a child and the corroborative medical evidence precluded bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence and release on bail was rejected.

Shivnath Ramprasad Sharma Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

17-APPA-171-2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.108 OF 2018

¶5

SHIVNATH RAMPRASAD SHARMA )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Kafil Khan a/w. Ms.Sara Khan i/b. Mr.Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr.Prashant Jadhav, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶10

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 20^th FEBRUARY 2018

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 This is an application for suspension of sentence and

¶13

releasing the applicant/accused on bail during pendency of the

¶14

appeal filed by him. The applicant/accused is convicted of the

¶15

offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as

¶16

well as under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

¶17

Offences Act, 2012. On each count he is sentenced to suffer

¶18

avk 1/6

¶19

17-APPA-171-2018.doc

¶20

rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from imposition of some amount as fine and default sentence, in the event of failure to pay the fine.

¶21

2 Heard the learned advocate appearing for the applicant/accused. He argued that though the prosecution has effected panchnama on the next day of the incident and seized clothes of the victim as well as the accused, nothing incriminating was found on those clothes. There were no injuries on the applicant/accused. Panch witness PW5 Mahajan Kewat has turned hostile to the prosecution and therefore, co-panch was examined by the defence. This DW1 Madan Sharma has deposed about the fact that two days prior to the incident, there was dispute between applicant/accused Shivnath and PW1 Rita, and at that time, PW1 Rita had said that she will look after the applicant/accused subsequently. This, according to the learned advocate for the applicant/accused, is a cause for false implication of the present applicant/accused. The learned advocate further argued that husband of the First Informant i.e. PW1 Rita is not

¶22

avk 2/6

¶23

17-APPA-171-2018.doc

¶24

examined nor his statement is recorded. PW3 Dr.Ravindra Chavhan has deposed in cross-examination that by other causes, the injuries are possible. With this, it is further argued that, the PW2 i.e. the victim child had attained maturity at the time when he entered into witness box and as such, he was susceptible to tutoring and there is false implication of the present applicant/accused in the crime in question.

¶25

3 The learned APP supported the impugned judgment

¶26

and order.

¶27

4 The first and foremost submission is the possibility of false implication of the applicant/accused in the crime in question and for this purpose, reliance is placed on version of DW1 Madan Sharma. This DW1 Madan Sharma is none else but cousin of the present applicant/accused. He stated in his chief-examination that two days prior to the incident in question, there was dispute between the applicant/accused Shivnath and PW1 Rita. This witness is as vague as he can be, as no reason or cause for such

¶28

avk 3/6

¶29

17-APPA-171-2018.doc

¶30

dispute is stated by this DW1 Madan, who is real cousin of the present applicant/accused. That apart, there is no suggestion in respect of this alleged dispute to PW1 Rita or the PW2 i.e. the victim of the crime in question. In absence of this exercise, explicit reliance cannot be placed on evidence of DW1 Madan, who is an interested witness, he being cousin of the present applicant/accused. Moreover, it is well settled that in Indian setting, no mother would ruin the future of her 8 year old son by leveling such allegation to the effect that he is sexually molested by the present applicant/accused, in order to falsely implicate the present applicant/accused in the crime in question.

¶31

5 PW1 Rita has deposed about narrations of her 8 year old son to her in respect of the sexual assault on him by the present applicant/accused. Her son is examined as PW2. He has categorically deposed about the penetrative sexual assault on him by the present applicant/accused. Nothing is elicited from crossexamination of this witness in order to demonstrate that he is a tutored witness. Evidence of the PW2 i.e. the victim child is

¶32

avk 4/6

¶33

17-APPA-171-2018.doc

¶34

gaining corroboration from the medical evidence on record. The PW2 i.e. the victim child was medically examined on 12^th September 2013 and on local examination PW3 Dr.Ravindra has found that the victim child was having abrasions in 6 O'Clock and 12 O'Clock position on the anus and those were fresh abrasions. The incident took place on 10^th September 2013 and as such, it cannot be said that fresh abrasions cast a shadow of doubt on prosecution case. Such abrasions may be caused by other reasons also is accepted by this PW3 Dr.Ravindra, but such admission would have any weightage, if such suggestions are given to the PW2 i.e. the victim boy and the defence is probabilized by bringing on record some tangible material to infer that cause of abrasions to anal area is something else than the sexual assault on the victim child. There is no such material in cross-examination of the PW2 i.e. the victim boy.

¶35

6 Nature of the crime and the circumstance in which it is committed is a relevant criteria for releasing an accused on bail. In the case in hand, evidence on record shows that the

¶36

avk 5/6

¶37

17-APPA-171-2018.doc

¶38

applicant/accused has allured a eight year old boy with money and committed sexual assault on him. Considering the offence and the nature of the evidence, no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the order :

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The application is rejected.

¶41

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶42

avk 6/6

Shivnath Ramprasad Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivnath Ramprasad Sharma 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

Vasant Rama Jadhav Vs Rakesh Malhotra and Anr.

Mohammad Azad Alam Diljad Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh M. Kamath Vs CBI Acb Mumbai and Anr.

Ashok Babubhai Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raju @ Pralhad Vitthal Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman @ Lakkhan Naik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra