Dismissed

Devidas Baburao Nanaware v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Oct 2018APPA/728/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction rejected an application for suspension of sentence and release on bail for a convict accused of sexual offences against a 12-year-old child under IPC and POCSO, citing the gravity of the crime and lack of evidence for false implication.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence and release on bail rejected; hearing of appeal expedited.

Devidas Baburao Nanaware Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

20-APPA-728-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.728 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.192 OF 2018

¶5

DEVIDAS BABURAO NANAWARE )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Pramod G. Kathane a/w. Mr.K.M.Kodani, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶10

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 19^th OCTOBER 2018

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 This is an application for suspension of sentence and

¶13

releasing the applicant/accused on bail, during the pendency of

¶14

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

¶15

offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 376(1)(n) and 506 of

¶16

avk 1/4

¶17

20-APPA-728-2017.doc

¶18

the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). For the offence punishable under Section 376(1), 376(1)(n) of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the applicant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 11 years on each count. For the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. For the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 11 years.

¶19

2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused. He argued that there is material variance and improvement in the statement under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the victim of the crime in question. He further argued that report of DNA test is not supporting the case of prosecution, and therefore, the applicant/accused is entitled for bail. The learned APP opposed the application.

¶20

avk 2/4

¶21

20-APPA-728-2017.doc

¶22

3 I have considered the submissions so advanced and perused the material placed on record including record of deposition of prosecution witnesses so also the defence witnesses.

¶23

4 The victim of the crime in question is examined as PW1. Her date of birth, as per record maintained under Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, is 9^th July 2003, and as such, at the time of the alleged incident, she was 12 years of age.

¶24

5 Evidence of the PW1/victim child shows that the applicant/accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on her, time and again. Her evidence as well evidence of her mother shows that because of repeated penetrative sexual assaults, the PW1/victim child became pregnant, and thereafter, she disclosed the incident. That is how, report came to be lodged by her mother – PW2 Vaishali. There is no need of corroboration to the version of the victim of sexual assault. In the case in hand, after aborting the foetus, product of conception so also samples of blood of the

¶25

avk 3/4

¶26

20-APPA-728-2017.doc

¶27

applicant/accused as well as the PW1/victim child were sent for DNA examination. Evidence of PW5 Dr.Rohidas Mundhe shows that because of small quantity of the product, it was not possible to ascertain whether DNA of the product of the conception matched with the DNA of the applicant/accused. However, evidence of the PW1/victim child is pointing finger of accusation against the applicant/accused. There is nothing on record to infer that the applicant/accused was falsely implicated in the crime in question.

¶28

6 Considering the nature of evidence and the nature of crime, no case for bail is made out.

¶29

7 The application is, therefore, rejected. Hearing of the appeal is expedited.

¶30

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶31

avk 4/4

Devidas Baburao Nanaware v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas Baburao Nanaware 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

Irfan Mehmud Pathan Vs the Sr. Police Inspector and Anr.

Taukal @ Salim Mehmud Pathan Vs the Sr. Police Inspector and Anr.

Rajendra Mulchand Trivedi Vs Santosh Shrinivas Zawar and Anr.

Bhaskar Krishna Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babulal Dalchand Parmar Vs Yogesh Omkar Jain (Madresa) and Anr.

Sandip Baban Nagare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra