Prakash S/O Devidas Khaparde vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Jaripatka Nagpur — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Prakash S/O Devidas Khaparde vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Jaripatka Nagpur — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief to the applicant; application rejected. Only directions issued were quantification of the appointed advocates' fees, payable by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur.

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, ought to be suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal.

Court's answer

Having gone through the papers on record, this is not a fit case to suspend the sentence; the application for suspension of sentence is rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The victim (P.W.-2) gave a consistent account of the incident of 09/11/2022; nothing emerged in her cross-examination to create doubt about her testimony, and the medical evidence, including the history recorded by the Medical Officer who examined her on 11/11/2022, corroborated it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Neeraj P. Dhote, J.) — Criminal Application (APPA) No. 958 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 2025; decided 12/02/2026. Application for suspension of sentence against conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur (Judgment and Order dated 06/12/2024 in Sessions Case No. 61/2023) under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 IPC, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and two years respectively with fines, running concurrently, with Section 428 CrPC set off. Counsel for the appellant contended the medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's testimony and that relations were consensual. The Court examined the victim's evidence (P.W.-2): the incident of 09/11/2022 at about 12.30 p.m., complaint to parents on 11/11/2022, nothing in cross-examination creating doubt, and corroboration by Dr. Shreya Singh (witness no. 6), including the recorded history and torn hymen, with opinion that sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. Held: not a fit case to suspend the sentence; application rejected. Fees of the appointed advocates quantified at Rs. 7,500/- (appellant's counsel) and Rs. 5,000/- (respondent no. 2's counsel), payable by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur.

2026:BHC-NAG:2600

1 20) Apeal 567-2025111

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

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 958 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2025

PRAKASH S/O. DEVIDAS KHAPARDE

VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

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

Ms. Sonali Saware-Gadhawe, Advocate (appointed) for appellant. Shri B.M.Lonare, APP for respondent/State. Ms. Deepali Patil-Sahare, Advocate (appointed) for respondent no. 2.

CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATE : 12/02/2026

This is an Application for suspension sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by Judgment and Order dated 06/12/2024 in Sessions Case No. 61/2023, convicting and sentencing the Appellant/ Applicant as follows:-

“i) The accused Prakash Devidas Khaparde is convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offence under Section 376(2) (f) of Indian Penal Code to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for four months.

ii) The accused Prakash Devidas Khaparde is convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offence under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) in

2 20) Apeal 567-2025222

default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months.

iii) The sentences to run concurrently.

iv) The accused is entitled to set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

v) .... vi) .... vii) .... viii) .... ix) …..”

The case of the prosecution as can be seen from the papers on record is that, when the victim was alone in her house on 09/11/2022 in the afternoon, the Appellant who was known to her, came to her house and raped her. The victim informed about the incident to her mother after two days. The incident was reported to the Police and Crime No. 731/2022 came to be registered with the Jaripatka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘I.P.C.’). After investigation, the Appellant came to be charge-sheeted. The trial resulted in the impugned Judgment and Order.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that, the medical evidence does not corroborate the testimony of the victim. There can be many reasons for Hymen to get tear. The conviction cannot rest on the

3 20) Apeal 567-2025333

testimony of the victim as there were consensual relations. She submits that, the Application be allowed.

The Application is opposed by the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for Respondent no. 2 - Victim. They submitted that, the victim has deposed about the incident of rape. The medical evidence on record corroborated her testimony. This is not the fit case for suspension of sentence and Application be rejected.

With the assistance of both the sides, I have gone through the papers on record. The victim is examined as P.W.-2. Her testimony shows that, the Appellant is husband of her cousin sister. The Appellant used to send her message on the WhatsApp. She came to know it from the display picture that, it was the number of the Appellant. Her evidence shows that, on 09/11/2022 at about 12.30 p.m. when she was alone in the house, the Appellant came to her house and asked for water. When she went to get the water, the Appellant closed the door and went behind her in the kitchen. The Appellant pressed her mouth when she shouted. He threatened her to kill and forcibly committed sexual intercourse. Her testimony shows that, she informed her parents about the incident on 11/11/2022. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of the victim to create any doubt about the testimony. There is medical evidence in the nature of testimony of witness no. 6–Dr. Shreya Singh who examined the victim on 11/11/2022. The history recorded by the Medical Officer corroborated the testimony of the victim. The Hymen was found to be torn. The medical

4 20) Apeal 567-2025444

examination report of the victim is brought on record in the evidence of this witness. The medical opinion is that, the sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. There is injury to the Hymen. Considering the evidence on record, in my considered view, this is not the fit case to suspend the sentence. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

i) The Application is rejected . ii) For this Application, the fees of the learned Advocate Ms. Sonali Saware/Gadhawe appointed for the Appellant is quantified at Rs. 7,500/- [Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only], which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur.

iii) For this Application, the fees of the learned Advocate Ms. Deepali Patil/Sahare appointed for the Respondent no. 2 is quantified at Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand Only], which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services SubCommittee, Nagpur.

(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)

B.T.K.

Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 16/02/2026 11:40:37