Dismissed¶28

Hiraman Ramchandra Titkare v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2026IA/5351/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence; bail pending appeal; prima facie case of success in appeal; Bombay High Court interim application; sexual assault of daughter by father; prosecutrix testimony unrebutted in cross-examination; corroboration by medical evidence and brother's testimony; mother of victim not examined; belated recording of witness statement; two-room shared premises not fatal to charge; family disputes over household money and false implication; Sessions Case No. 162 of 2021; Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2024; R. M. Joshi, J.; Maharashtra; 21 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail are refused: the Court finds no justification to enlarge the Applicant on bail, the requirement of making out a prima facie case of success in the Appeal not having been satisfied. ¶27

Hiraman Ramchandra Titkare vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellant, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine in Sessions Case No. 162 of 2021, has made out a prima facie case of success in Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2024 so as to justify suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail pending the Appeal. +2 more

¶22-23

Court's answer

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Even accepting that the place of incident was two-room premises, that fact by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the offence could not have occurred.

¶27

Key takeaways

The prosecutrix, in her testimony, specifically described the manner in which the incidents of sexual assault were caused on her by her father, and nothing was elicited in cross-examination to discard her testimony.ratio¶27
The testimony of the victim is reliable and receives support from the medical evidence and from the evidence of her brother, as pointed out by learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and the learned APP.ratio¶27
Although it was on record that the Appellant was not providing money for household expenses and quarrels occurred over that issue, such domestic disputes cannot become a substantial reason for false implication of the Appellant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), R. M. Joshi, J., 21 January 2026: Interim Application No. 5351 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2024, by an appellant sentenced in Sessions Case No. 162 of 2021 (Judgment and Order dated 30 January 2024) to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine for sexually assaulting his daughter, seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal. Held: an applicant for suspension of sentence must make out a prima facie case of success in the appeal; the shared two-room dwelling does not by itself show the offence could not have occurred; the prosecutrix's testimony, in which she described the manner of assault, was undamaged in cross-examination and is corroborated by medical evidence and by her brother's testimony; domestic quarrels over household money are no substantial ground to urge false implication despite the mother remaining unexamined and the brother's statement being recorded belatedly. Interim Application dismissed; Appeal expedited; observations expressly confined to the interim decision and not binding at final hearing.

¶1

67-IA-5351-2024.DOC

¶2

Ajit Pathrikar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5351 OF 2024 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1101 OF 2024

¶6

Hiraman Ramchandra Titkare ...Appellant/Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Hrishikesh R. Chavan , for the Appellant. Ms. S. K. Gajare , APP for the State-Respondent No.1. Ms. Aishwarya Sharma , for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 21^st JANUARY 2026

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1. This application is for suspension of sentence and enlargement of the Appellant on bail in connection with the Judgment and Order dated 30^th January 2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 162 of 2021, whereby the Appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine.

¶11

2. The facts of the case are that the daughter of the Appellant-accused levelled allegations against him of being

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

21^st January 2026

¶14

67-IA-5351-2024.DOC

¶15

sexually harassed by the Appellant. She claims to have narrated the incident to her mother. However, mother was not of any help to her. Ultimately, she approached her maternal aunt and uncle, with whose aid she could lodge a a report against the Appellant. She maintained her version before the Trial Court in her substantial evidence. Her version is supported by the medical evidence on record. Apart from this, the prosecution examined the younger brother of the victim in order to support the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the Appellant.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration a vital aspect of the case, that the mother of the victim, who was informed about the alleged incident of sexual assault, was not examined by the prosecution. It is his submission that though the evidence of the brother is led before the Court, his statement came to be recorded belatedly. It is his argument that having regard to

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

21^st January 2026

¶19

67-IA-5351-2024.DOC

¶20

the fact that there were disputes in the family over the Appellant not providing money for household expenses, the possibility of false implication is made out. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that in view of the evidence of the victim, it can be seen that the victim along with her parents and brother were residing in two-room premises and hence, it is not possible that any such incident would have occurred.

¶21

4. Learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 opposed the application. According to them, the Appellant has not brought on record any substantive reason for his false implication. It is their submission that the testimony of the prosecutrix/victim itself is sufficient to prove the guilt of the Appellant. According to them, her version gets support not only from the evidence of her brother but also from the medical evidence.

¶22

5. In order to seek suspension of sentence and enlargement

¶23

on bail, the Appellant has to make out a prima facie case of

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

21^st January 2026

¶26

67-IA-5351-2024.DOC

¶27

success in the Appeal. Even though it is accepted that the place of incident is two-room premises, that by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the offence could not have occurred. The prosecutrix, in her testimony, specifically states the manner in which the incident of sexual assault used to be caused on her by her father. In the cross-examination, nothing was elicited in order to discard her testimony. Though it is brought on record that the Appellant was not providing money for household expenses and quarrels used to be occur on that issue, the same cannot become a substantial reason for false implication of the Appellant. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned APP, the testimony of the victim is reliable so also it also gets support from medical evidence and the evidence of her brother. In such circumstances, this Court finds no justification to enlarge the Applicant on bail.

¶28

6. Hence, the Interim Application stands dismissed.

¶29

7. Appeal stands expedited.

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

21^st January 2026

¶32

67-IA-5351-2024.DOC

¶33

8. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove