Dismissed¶40

The State of Maharashtra v. Rahul Suresh Munadde and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2026ALS/31/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to file appeal against acquittal refused; acquittal upheld for lack of proof of victim's minority — victim PW-2 admitted consensual relationship (first physical relation 03/01/2021; left with accused 12/02/2021; pregnant; returned by police June 2021; child delivered); no ossification test done; only age evidence was doubtful Birth Certificate Exh.32 dated 29/07/2021 (14/02/2006 certificate not produced; Nerul vs Shiravane address mismatch; DOB 17.09.2005 unexplained); benefit of doubt; no perversity in Additional Session Judge, Belapur judgment dated 04/12/2024 (POCSO Special Case No.639/2023); Bombay HC, Kotwal & Patil JJ., 27-01-2026; Ss.363, 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n) IPC; Ss.4, 5, 6 POCSO Act.

What did the court decide?

None — leave to file appeal against the acquittal was refused. ¶40

The State of Maharashtra vs Rahul Suresh… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — leave to file appeal against the acquittal was refused.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution proved that the victim (PW-2) was a minor at the time of the incident. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

From PW-2's evidence it was quite clear that the case was one of consensual physical relation; therefore the decisive question was whether the prosecution proved PW-2 was a minor at the time.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution and the Investigating Agency had not subjected the victim to an ossification test, leaving the Birth Certificate as the only evidence of her age.

¶31

Key takeaways

The learned trial Judge took a plausible and reasonable view and gave the benefit of doubt to the accused; no perversity was found in the judgment or the trial judge's approach, and there was no reason to interfere with the acquittal.ratio¶40
Leave to file the appeal against the acquittal is refused, and Criminal Application (For leave to file an Appeal) No. 31 of 2025 is accordingly rejected.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Sarang V. Kotwal & Sandesh D. Patil, JJ., 27 January 2026: Criminal Application (For Leave to File an Appeal) No. 31 of 2025 by the State of Maharashtra (PS Turbhe) seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal dated 04/12/2024 by the Additional Session Judge, Belapur in POCSO Special Case No.639 of 2023 of Rahul Suresh Munadde on charges under Sections 363, 376(2)(j) and 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 4, 5, 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim (PW-2) testified to a consensual relationship beginning 03/01/2021; she went with the accused to another place on 12/02/2021, became pregnant, was brought back by police in June 2021 when five months pregnant, and delivered a child. No ossification test was conducted; the sole age evidence was a Birth Certificate dated 29/07/2021 produced at Exhibit-32, the earlier certificate dated 14/02/2006 not having been produced; the trial judge (para 15) doubted the date of birth owing to an address discrepancy (Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Nerul vs Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Shiravane — two different villages) and the unexplained Aarogya Kendra recording of DOB 17.09.2005 despite a home birth with no family report. Held: the trial judge took a plausible and reasonable view and gave benefit of doubt to the accused; no perversity was found; there was no reason to interfere; consequently leave to file the appeal against the acquittal was refused and the application was rejected.

¶1

33-ALS-31-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2025

¶4

(For Leave to File an Appeal)

¶5

The State of Maharashtra … Applicant (Through Police Station Turbhe) Navi Mumbai. Dist: Thane.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rahul Suresh Munadde Age: 24 years, Residence-28 kh, Nimcha-Kala, Tahsil Tarangain Samaradha Ward no.12 Gharda, Madhya Pradesh

¶8

XYZ (Identity witheld as per Sec. 33 (7) of the POCSO Act) Turbhe Police Station Dist-Thane C.R. No.51 of 2021. … Respondents

¶9

Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl. P. P. for the Applicant-State.

¶10

Mr. Rahul S. Arote along with Mr. Jay N. Suryavanshi and Ms. Nikita V. Gawai, for the Respondent No.1.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 27^th JANUARY, 2026.

1/6

Manisha

33-ALS-31-2025.doc

P.C. :

This is an Application for leave to file Appeal against Judgment and Order dated 04/12/2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Belapur in POCSO Special Case No.639 of 2023. Vide the impugned Judgment and Order, the Respondent No.1 herein who was the accused before the trial Court was acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(j) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶18

Heard Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, learned A.P.P. for the Appellant-State. and Mr. Rahul S. Arote, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. submitted that the learned Judge erred in acquitting the accused. The Prosecution had led cogent evidence in respect of Birth Certificate of the victim which shows that on the date of incident i.e. in January, 2021, the victim was below 18 years of age.

2/6

Manisha

33-ALS-31-2025.doc

She submitted that the fact that there was physical relation leading to the victim’s pregnancy is undisputed. therefore, the learned Judge erred in acquitting the accused.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1-Accused submitted that the learned Judge has properly appreciated the doubt raised in respect of the age of the victim and therefore since the learned Judge has taken a plausible view, it may not be interfered with.

¶25

We have considered the submissions. We have perused the copies of evidence annexed to this Application. The victim is examined as PW-2. She had clearly stated that she and Respondent No.1-accused were in a relationship. The first instance of physical relation was on 03/01/2021 at 4:00 a.m. PW-2 had willingly on her own accord had gone to meet the Respondent No.1-accused. Her family came across their photographs. She categorically told her family that she wanted to marry the accused; but since according to her family she had not attained the age of marriage, the marriage was not possible. Inspite of

3/6

Manisha

33-ALS-31-2025.doc

that, PW-2 went with the accused to a different place on 12/02/2021 without telling her family. They stayed together in a rented room. The accused had taken a job in a dispensary. PW-2 became pregnant. In June, 2021, the local Police came in her search and took her back. At that time, she was pregnant for five months. Subsequently, she delivered a child. However, the prosecution was lodged against the accused.

¶30

From her evidence, it is quite clear that it was the case of consensual physical relation. Therefore, the most important feature in this case is whether the prosecution has proved that PW-2 was a minor at that time.

¶31

It is also undisputed that the prosecution and the Investigating Agency had not taken care to subject the victim to ossification test. Therefore, the only evidence regarding her age was in the form of Birth Certificate. For that purpose, PW-3 Sachin Patil working with Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation was examined. He made

4/6

Manisha

33-ALS-31-2025.doc

reference to the first Birth Certificate dated 14/02/2006 but it was not produced on record. What was produced on record was the Birth Certificate dated 29/07/2021. It is produced on record at Exhibit-32. The learned Judge has considered this evidence in paragraph 15 of the judgment which reads thus;

¶36

“ 15] After considering submissions, I find that there is doubt about the date of birth of victim. At the cost of repetition on perusal of birth certificate below Exh.32 it is revealed that address mentioned in this is HP Quarry, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Nerul, Navi Mumbai whereas the report of Aarogya Kendra though it is not got exhibited and proved but since it is referred in the cross-examination and argument, it can be considered prima facie to show that what is address mentioned in this report. In this report the address of complainant is mentioned Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Shiravane whereas address mentioned in the birth certificate below Exh.32 as Mahatma Gandhi Nagar Nerul. Village Nerul and village Shiravane are two different villages. I find that who has reported regarding birth of victim in Aarogya Kendra this aspect is not made clear and therefore when victim was born in the house and nobody reported to Aarogya Kendra from the family of victim, how Aarogya Kendra has mentioned date of birth as 17.09.2005, this aspect is not made clear.”

5/6

Manisha

33-ALS-31-2025.doc

We find that the learned Judge has taken a plausible and reasonable view and has given benefit of doubt to the accused. We do not find any perversity in the said judgment and with the approach taken by the learned trial Judge. We do not find any reason to interfere in the well reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Belapur in POCSO Special Case No.639 of 2023. Consequently, leave to file Appeal against the acquittal is refused.

¶41

Accordingly, Criminal Application (For leave to file an Appeal) No. 31 of 2025 is rejected.

¶42

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶43

6/6

¶44

Manisha

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and Order dated 04/12/2024 of the Additional Session Judge, Belapur in POCSO Special Case No.639 of 2023, acquitting Respondent No.1 (the accused) of charges under Sections 363, 376(2)(j) and 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 4, 5, 6 of the POCSO Act.¶17
Additional Session Judge, Belapur · 2024-12-04
Prior proceeding
Trial in POCSO Special Case No.639 of 2023 before the Additional Session Judge, Belapur ended in acquittal of Respondent No.1 (the accused) of the charges under Sections 363, 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 4, 5, 6 POCSO Act.¶17
Prior proceeding
Victim examined as PW-2; she stated she and Respondent No.1-accused were in a relationship; first instance of physical relation on 03/01/2021 at 4:00 a.m.; she had gone willingly, of her own accord, to meet him.¶25
Prior proceeding
PW-2's family came across their photographs; she categorically told them she wanted to marry the accused, but her family held she had not attained the age of marriage, so marriage was not possible.¶25
Prior proceeding
On 12/02/2021 PW-2 went with the accused to a different place without telling her family; they stayed together in a rented room; the accused took a job in a dispensary; PW-2 became pregnant.¶29
Prior proceeding
In June 2021 the local police came in search of PW-2 and took her back when she was five months pregnant; she subsequently delivered a child.¶29
Prior proceeding
Thereafter prosecution was lodged against the accused.¶29
Prior proceeding
Prosecution and Investigating Agency did not subject the victim to ossification test.¶31
Prior proceeding
Consequently the only evidence of the victim's age was the Birth Certificate; PW-3 Sachin Patil of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation was examined for that purpose.¶31
Prior proceeding
PW-3 referred to a first Birth Certificate dated 14/02/2006 which was not produced on record; the Birth Certificate dated 29/07/2021 was what was produced.¶35
Prior proceeding
The Birth Certificate was produced at Exhibit-32; the trial judge considered this evidence in paragraph 15 of his judgment.¶35
Prior proceeding
Trial judge (judgment para 15) found doubt about the victim's date of birth.¶36
Prior proceeding
The doubt rested on an address discrepancy: the Aarogya Kendra report gave the complainant's address as Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Shiravane whereas the birth certificate below Exh.32 gave Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Nerul — two different villages.¶36
Prior proceeding
It was unclear who reported the birth to Aarogya Kendra; the victim was said to be born at home with nobody reporting from the family, yet the Kendra recorded date of birth 17.09.2005.¶36

The State of Maharashtra v. Rahul Suresh Munadde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Rahul Suresh Munadde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nilesh Kisan Waghe vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra vs Umesh Alias Sagar Nandu Sawant and Anr.

Madhurajsing @ Rajasing Darogasing Badoria vs State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra vs Dattatraya Dagdu Bhatlawande

Shivam Vedprakash Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra

Xyz vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.