Dismissed

Harishchandra Sitaram Khanorkar v. State of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Hudkeshwar Nagpur

Bombay HC20 Apr 2021APPA/616/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for suspension of a life sentence. Convicted of POCSO and IPC offences, the appellant failed to rebut statutory presumptions as the victim delivered a child while under his custody, leading the court to refuse bail.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence was refused; Criminal Application dismissed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri C.S.Dhore, Advocate for Appellant. Shri T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.

This is an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the appellant. The appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offcences Act, 2012 and Section 376(2)(f)(j)(i)(n)of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is directed to suffer imprisonment for life.

On careful consideration of impugned judgment, it appears that the appellant is maternal uncle of the victim. From the findings recorded by the learned Judge, it appears that the victim was pregnant and has delivered a child. It is also undisputed fact that the victim was living with the appellant. Though the appellant is disputing age of the victim, but the fact that the appellant is aged about 55 years is not disputed. Since the age of the appellant and the relationship of the appellant with the victim is not disputed, considering the facts that the victim was in the custody of the appellant and became pregnant, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge. Though the appellant was on bail during the Trial, due to

conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge, the presumption of innocence which was in favour of the appellant during Trial has been extinguished and the appellant is not entitled to said presumption. The appellant has not led any evidence to rebut the presumption under Sections 29and 30 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Harishchandra Sitaram Khanorkar v. State of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Hudkeshwar Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchandra Sitaram Khanorkar v. State of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Hudkeshwar Nagpur

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

Kunal Shivcharan Tayade Vs State of Maharashatra

Gaurav S/O Arjun Kshirsagar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Beltarodi Nagpur and Another

Nilesh S/O Mahadevrao Tadas Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Seloo, Tq. Seloo, Dist. Wardha and Another

Mahadev Ravindra Kapde Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. D.I. G. Prison (East), Nagpur and Another

Abdul Hasan Bande Hasan Mistry Vs Deputy Inspector General Prison, East Nagpur and Another

Sahil Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Lohara, Dist. Yavatmal and Another