Dismissed¶¶27

Nagesh Jatuboud Gauda @ Anna v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2025IA/324/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence; bail pending appeal refused; POCSO Act Section 6; child sexual assault; prosecutrix aged 11 years; uncrossed deposition para 3; admissions in cross-examination of pain; prima facie complicity; life imprisonment with fine Rs.10,000/-; POCSO Special Case No. 126 of 2021; Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2024; Interim Application No. 324 of 2024; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; Revati Mohite Dere; Dr. Neela Gokhale; decided 24 March 2025.

What did the court decide?

The evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-2, aged 11 years), whose disclosure in para 3 of her deposition of being called home and sexually assaulted went uncross-examined and who admitted in cross-examination to pain after the incident, is prima facie sufficient and shows the complicity of the applicant in the alleged crime. ¶¶25

Nagesh Jatuboud Gauda @ Anna vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to life imprisonment, is entitled to suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail pending the hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2024.

¶¶13

Court's answer

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

Considering the manner in which the applicant sexually assaulted the 11-year-old girl and the evidence in this regard, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) rejects Interim Application No. 324 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2024, wherein Nagesh Jatuboud Gauda @ Anna sought suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail pending hearing and final disposal of his appeal. The applicant had been convicted by the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act in POCSO Special Case No. 126 of 2021, by Judgment and Order dated 19th December, 2022, for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- (in default, simple imprisonment for one year). Perusing the evidence of PW-2, the prosecutrix aged 11 years, the Court noted that her para 3 disclosure of sexual assault by the applicant bore absolutely no cross-examination, and that in cross she admitted pain in her private parts on the day of the incident and daily thereafter. The Court held this evidence prima facie sufficient to show the applicant's complicity, and considering the manner of assault on an 11-year-old girl, held it was not a fit case to enlarge him on bail. Coram: Revati Mohite Dere & Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ.; decided 24th March, 2025.

¶1

43-IA-324-2024.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by RUPALI RUPALI RAJESH RAJESH WAKODIKAR WAKODIKAR Date: 2025.03.26 10:27:26 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 324 OF 2024

¶4

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2024

¶6

Nagesh Jatuboud Gauda @ Anna ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sarvajit Bharatsham Patil for the Applicant.

¶8

Ms. Sakshi P. Chavan Appointed Adv For Respondent No.2.

¶9

Mrs. P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 24th MARCH, 2025

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of his

¶13

sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of his appeal.

1/3

Wakodikar

43-IA-324-2024.doc

The applicant, vide Judgment and Order dated 19^th

¶18

December, 2022, passed by the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act, in POCSO Special Case No. 126 of 2021, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. For the said offence, the applicant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year.

¶19

Perused the papers, in particular, the statement of the prosecutrix i.e. the evidence of PW-2. PW-2 aged 11 years has disclosed in para 3 of her evidence how the incident of sexual assault took place on her. She has stated that the applicant called her home and sexually assaulted her and thereafter, threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. There is absolutely no cross on para 3 i.e. to the said disclosure made by the prosecutrix vis-a-vis the sexual assault on her by the accused. On the contrary, it has come in the cross-examination as under :

2/3

Wakodikar

43-IA-324-2024.doc

“I did not tell the dirty incident to my mother because he had threatened me. It is true to say that the day when incident happened there is pain in my toilet part. It is true to say that it was paining to me every day thereafter.”

¶24

The aforesaid evidence is prima facie sufficient and shows

¶25

the complicity of the applicant in the alleged crime.

¶26

Considering the aforesaid and considering the manner in which, the applicant has sexually assaulted the 11 years old girl and the evidence in this regard, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶27

6. Application stands rejected.

¶28

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶29

3/3

¶30

Wakodikar

Nagesh Jatuboud Gauda @ Anna v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagesh Jatuboud Gauda @ Anna v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Baburao Daji Godse Decd through Lhrs and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Mrs. Surekha Digambar Khavale vs Mr. Digambar Manohar Khavale

Mrs. Surekha Digambar Khavale vs Mr. Digambar Manohar Khavale

X vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Public Health Department

Madha Taluka Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra (Thr Prin. Sec. Higher Edu Dept.) and Ors.

Jangal Kondiba Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.