Allowed

Ulhas Chandrakant Shendge v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Aug 2024APL/770/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sessions Court order denying cross-examination of victim in POCSO case before Sessions Court allowed. Court noted applicant failed earlier opportunities despite costs, yet in interest of justice granted crossexamination chance now. Applicant ordered to cross-examine victim within timeframe else forfeit right.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant ordered to cross-examine victim within stipulated timeframe else forfeit right.

Ulhas Chandrakant Shendge vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

3-APL-770-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.770 OF 2024

¶4

Ulhas Chandrakant Shendge …. Applicant V/s.

¶5

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondents

¶6

Digitally signed by NILAM NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE Date:2024.10.24 14:20:15 +0530

¶7

Mr.Tohid Shaikh i/b Ms.Anjali Patil, for the Applicant. Mr.V.A. Kulkarni, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. Ms.Mansi Kaku, Appointed Advocate, for Respondent No.2. Mr.V.S. Khatake, PSI, Vileparle Police Station.

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶9

DATE : 22^nd OCTOBER 2024

¶10

P.C:-

¶11

. By this Application, Applicant is challenging the

¶12

order dated 22^nd April 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Court at Mumbai in Miscellaneous Application(Exhibit-29) in POCSO

¶13

Special Case No.331 of 2020.

¶14

It is contention for the learned counsel for the

¶15

Applicant that, the Applicant had filed an Application before Sessions Court for recalling the witness i.e. victim-PW-1 and it

¶16

was allowed vide order dated 9^th November 2023 and matter was

¶17

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶18

3-APL-770-2024.doc

¶19

posted for evidence on 12^th December 2023. On 12^th December the victim was present before the learned Sessions Court but the Advocate for the Applicant remained absent, therefore crossexamination of the victim could not be taken place, in the Roznama it was mentioned that victim will not be called for cross-examination.

¶20

The learned counsel further submitted that, as the Applicant is behind bar. PW-1 victim is the main witness her cross-examination is must to prove defence of the Applicant. Hence, requested to allow the Application.

¶21

The learned APP strongly objected to allow the Application and requested to reject the Application.

¶22

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused

¶23

impugned order.

¶24

It appears from record that, two times victim was called for cross-examination but learned counsel for the Applicant failed to cross-examine her even cost of Rs.500/- was imposed on the Applicant. The Applicant has been charged under section 363, 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶25

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶26

3-APL-770-2024.doc

¶27

Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 6,8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ for short). In the interest of justice, it is necessary to give chance to the Applicant to cross-examine the victim. Hence, I pass following order.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) The Application is allowed. (ii) The Applicant shall cross-examine the victim-PW-1 on the date given by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶30

(iii) The Applicant shall complete the crossexamination of the witness on same day.

¶31

(iv) The Applicant shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the victim.

¶32

(v) The Trial Court is requested that, the date for cross-examination of victim be given in the month of November or by enquiring with Investigating Officer the date which is convenient to the victim. If Applicant fail to cross-examine the

¶33

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶34

3-APL-770-2024.doc

¶35

victim on the given date, the right of the crossexamination of the applicant would be forfeited.

¶36

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶37

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4

Ulhas Chandrakant Shendge v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ulhas Chandrakant Shendge 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Asha Ashok Chavan and Ors. vs Uday Ramchandra Takale and Anr.

Anita Vidyadhar Haval vs Shri. Baliram Pandurang Kavade and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Amit Kumar Ram Chandra Singh and Anr.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through Mumbai Legal Hub vs Shri Jagannath Sopan Thopte and Gaikwad and Ors.

Mangesh Chandrakant Sawant vs the State of Maharashtra

Beena Suresh Marothiya and Anr. vs Sanjay Avadhabihari Singh and Ors.