Dismissed

Shailesh Ashok Mane v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Aug 2019APPA/1994/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected criminal applications for suspension of sentence and bail. Convicted under Section 376D IPC and POCSO Act, applicant argued FIR against unknowns and prosecutrix age issues. Court held evidence gains corroboration, no consent defence, and no case made for suspension.

What did the court decide?

Applications for suspension of sentence and release on bail rejected.

Shailesh Ashok Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1994 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1995 OF 2018

¶3

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1481 OF 2018

¶4

Shailesh Ashok Mane ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ---Mr.S.G. Rajput for the Applicant.

¶5

Mr.Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM : A.M. BADAR, J.

¶7

DATE : 27^th AUGUST 2019

¶8

P.C.

¶9

These are applications for suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant on bail during the pendency of appeal filed by him. The applicant is convicted of offences punishable under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. On the first count he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and undergo default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years. On other

¶10

1-appa-1994-2018

¶11

count he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and to undergo default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. He argued that the FIR was against unknown persons though matter of prosecutrix had disclosed the incident to her mother, her mother

¶13

is not examined by the prosecution. It is further argued that the prosecutrix has not deposed about her date of birth and in charge Headmaster has only deposed recorded Date of Birth of the prosecutrix, in the record of the school. In submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, there is delay in sending the prosecutrix for medical examination. He further argued that the appeal may not be heard in the near future and therefore the applicant who is of young age needs to be released on bail.

¶14

3. The learned APP opposed the application.

¶15

I have considered the submissions so made and also

¶16

perused material placed on record including deposition of the prosecutrix/P.W.-4 on medical evidence.

¶17

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶18

1-appa-1994-2018

¶19

The FIR was against unknown persons as the prosecutrix was not knowing the accused. She was called by a person name Vikas Mane for working as labourer for the Caterer. No doubt she had talks with other persons in respect of this assignment, there is no evidence to show that prosecutrix was knowing the accused persons. Her evidence reveals that when she agreed for the work offered to her and accused persons had taken her by motorcycle to a secluded place at the bank of the river where they had committed rape on her.

¶20

Version of the prosecutrix is gaining corroboration from medical evidence which indicates that there were multiple acts of penetration on the prosecturix.

¶21

Theory of consent is not propounded by way of defence

¶22

and as such at this stage, evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix is not relevant or material.

¶23

There is prima facie evidence disclosing commission on the gang rape on the prosecutrix. Nature of crime as well as sentenced imposed are relevant consideration. Considering the overall evidence and nature of the crime, no case for suspension of

¶24

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶25

1-appa-1994-2018

¶26

sentence is made out.

¶27

The applications are therefore rejected.

¶28

However, hearing of the appeal is expedited.

¶29

(A.M. BADAR, J.)

¶30

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4

Shailesh Ashok Mane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Ashok Mane 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamalkant Maheshchand Saini Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijaykumar Raghunath Gosavi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Javed Khalil Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tukaram Devaram Gawade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Hasumali Abdulali Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharif Shaha Samsher Shaha Vs the State of Maharashtra