Satish Keshav Bajait vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

Satish Keshav Bajait vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal application allowed; order dated 17/06/2023 of the Extra Joint District and Sessions Judge, Wardha set aside, along with the order exhibiting the documents at Exh.93 and 94 only; question of producing the said documents by taking recourse to Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure kept open at the request of the learned APP.

Issue for consideration

Whether documents which form no part of the charge sheet may be tendered and exhibited directly through a witness during examination-in-chief, or may be brought on record only through the procedure of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and if illegally exhibited, whether the Trial Court's order exhibiting them should be set aside.

Court's answer

Since the procedure of producing material through Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed, the act of exhibiting the two documents (which were not part of the charge sheet) was illegal.

Ratio / Principle

The documents at Exh.93 and 94 should not have been permitted to be produced through the witness for the first time without adverting to Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Key takeaways

Because the documents produced by the witness were directly tendered in examination and exhibited, there was no option but to interfere with the Trial Court's order.ratio¶¶25
The order dated 17/06/2023 is set aside, as also the order exhibiting the documents at Exh.93 and 94 only.ratio¶¶31
Power to carry out further investigation is always available to the Investigating Officer; the learned APP's request to keep open the question of producing the said documents by recourse to Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is thus accommodated.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Application (APL) No. 222 of 2024 — Satish Keshav Bajait v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Rajnish R. Vyas, J.; 25/09/2025). The applicant, original accused in Special Child Case No.54/2020 (offences under Sections 354-A and 506 IPC r/w Sections 8 and 12 POCSO Act, 2012), challenged the Trial Court's order dated 17/06/2023 by which documents (Admission Form and Admission Register, Exh.93 and 94) tendered for the first time by PW-7 during examination-in-chief — documents that admittededly formed no part of the charge sheet — were exhibited over his objection. Holding: material outside the charge sheet is required to be produced through Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; direct exhibition of such documents through a witness, without adverting to Section 173(8), is illegal (relying on Wazid Ansari v. The Police Inspector, 2024 ALL MR (Cri) 3512, Para 17). Consequently, the order dated 17/06/2023 and the order exhibiting Exh.93 and 94 stand set aside; the power of further investigation remains available to the Investigating Officer and the question of producing the documents via Section 173(8) was kept open on the APP's request.

2025:BHC-NAG:9894

1 911-APL-222-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 222 OF 2024

SHRI SATISH KESHAV BAJAIT

Vrs.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

Shri M. N. Ali, Advocate for applicant. Shri N. R. Patil, A. P. P. for Non-applicant-sole.

CORAM: RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 25/09/2025.

The original accused in Special Child Case No.54/2020 has approached this Court praying for setting aside the order dated 17/06/2023 passed by the Extra Joint District and Sessions Judge, Wardha by which the documents produced by PW-7 - Mr. Chandu Ingole, which were not part of the charge sheet were exhibited during the course of examination-in-chief.

It is the case of applicant / original accused that offences under Sections 354-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code R/w Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was registered against him and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and trial commenced. Several witnesses were examined including PW-7 - Mr. Chandu Ingole. During the course of examination-in-chief, he produced photocopy and original copy of Admission Form and

2 911-APL-222-2024.odt

Admission Register before the Court which was objected by the accused. Overruling the objection, those documents were exhibited.

I have heard Shri Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Patil, learned APP for the State.

Shri Ali, learned counsel contends that procedure followed by the Trial Court is unknown to the law.

Per contra, learned APP states that the documents were produced in order to prove the age of the victim.

It was also contended that supporting documents to prove the age of the victim were already produced and exhibited also.

Be that as it may, it is admitted position that the documents which were sought to be produced were not part of charge sheet.

The Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that the material which is required to be produced through Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Since the aforesaid procedure was not followed, it can be said that the act of exhibiting those two documents was illegal. The dictum of law has been laid

3 911-APL-222-2024.odt

down in the case of Wazid Ansari Vrs The Police Inspector and others , reported in 2024 ALL MR (Cri) 3512, Para No.17 of which supports the aforesaid aspect. Para No.17 is reproduced hereinbelow :-

“17. Admittedly the application filed and signed by the Prosecutor no where refers to any provision of Cr.P.C. under which the Prosecutor is entitled to file such documents. In fact learned Prosecutor has stepped into the shoes of the Investigating Agency by asking the Court to allow him to produce the photographs which were not available either with police or with the complainant till filing of the chargesheet.”

Considering the fact that documents produced by the witnesses were directly tendered in examination and exhibited, there is no option but to interfere with the order.

The documents at Exh.93 and 94 should not have been permitted to produce through the witness for the first time without adverting to Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The learned APP requests this Court to keep open question of producing the said documents by taking recourse to Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Needless to mention that power to carry out further investigation is always available to the Investigating Officer.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

4 911-APL-222-2024.odt

Consequently, order dated 17/06/2023 is set aside so also the order of exhibiting the documents at Exh.93 and 94 only.

[RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.]

Choulwar

Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2025 17:40:43