Jan Anwar Alam vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 7 March, 2026

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Jan Anwar Alam vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 7 March, 2026

1. The present Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 23/05/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel-Raigad in Special POCSO Case No.249 of 2020 whereby the Appellant was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(j) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life which means imprisonment for remainder of his natural life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Appellant was also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Appellant was also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 3 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default to Manisha 2/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 5(m) which is punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Appellant was also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 which is punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:

On 31/08/2017, the informant had gone to attend her work Manisha 3/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc along with her husband. It is the case of the Prosecution that at about 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., PW-6 who was the tuition teacher of her children called the informant-PW-1 on cell phone and told her that the Appellant had committed wrong act with her daughter. The first informant rushed home. There was nobody at home. She saw that the bedsheet on the bed of the house was stained with blood. She went to PW-6's house. It was near PW-1's house. PW-1's daughter was sleeping in the house of PW-6. Her son was also in the house of PW-

6. The clothes of her daughter were shown to her by PW-6. There was blood on her frock. Her inner wear was torn and blood stained.

She asked her daughter about what had happened to which the daughter told her that the Accused had come inside the house and asked the victim the whereabouts of her parents. The victim replied that they had gone for work. At that time, the Accused made her lie on the bed and then committed the offence by covering her face with a bedsheet and pressed her neck, as the result of which she became unconscious. On coming to know about the incident, PW-1 approached the police station. The Police recorded the F.I.R. The Manisha 4/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc same is produced in trial as Exhibit-14. The investigation was carried out. The chargesheet was filed and then the trial was concluded.

3. The Prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of their case. The statement of the Accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was recorded. The defence of the Appellant was, the victim's mother had relationship with him, but due to their dispute he was falsely implicated. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the sides passed the Judgment and Order which is impugned herein.

4. In support of their case, the Prosecution examined PW-1- mother of the child. PW-1 is the first informant. She stated the manner in which the incident had occurred. She deposed as to how she came to know about the incident after rushing home. Her daughter told her about the act committed by the Appellant when the victim was in her house alone.

In her cross-examination, PW-1 was asked a question as to Manisha 5/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc whether the victim girl was menstruating to which she said that till the date of cross-examination her menstrual cycle had not started. PW-1 stated in her cross-examination that, she received a phone call from PW-6 at about 10:30 a.m. PW-1 stated that it was not true that at that time, her son was sleeping in her house. PW-1 stated that she visited the house of PW-6 at about 11:00 a.m. and thereafter visited the police station at about 2:00 p.m. PW-1 denied that there were any photographs of the Accused in her mobile phone. She denied that at the material time, the Accused was demanding his mobile phone from PW-1 and she was not giving it.

5. The Prosecution examined PW-2 (victim) in support of their case. The victim stated that her date of birth was 02/01/2008. PW-2 stated that she was studying in the first standard in the year 2017. She stated that her mother and father had gone to work. PW-2 was alone at home and her brother was playing downstairs. PW-2 stated that the Accused came inside the house and asked her where her parents were. PW-2 told him that they had gone to work. She stated that the Accused thereafter came inside the house and latched the door from Manisha 6/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc inside. He made her lie on the bed. He pressed her neck. Thereafter, PW-2 began shouting. He then pressed her neck hard and she fell unconscious. When she became conscious, she was alone in the house. PW-2 stated that she was having pain in her private parts. She stated that her brother came home, he took her to the house of PW-6. PW-6 had asked her as to what had happened. PW-2 narrated the incident to PW-6.

In the cross-examination, she stated that, on the date of the cross-examination she was studying in fifth standard. PW-2 stated that she was knowing the Accused. She denied that in the mobile phone of the Accused there were photographs of herself and her mother. PW-2 stated that she had given a statement before the learned JMFC, Panvel. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was marked at Exhibit-25. PW-2 stated that she went to the house of PW-6, who gave bath to her. PW-2 stated that her clothes were changed by PW-6.

6. PW-3 was brother of the victim. PW-3's age at the time of recording of the evidence was 14 years. He stated that in 2017, they Manisha 7/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc were residing at the place where the incident had taken place. He stated that his date of birth was 05/06/2006. PW-3 stated that on the date of the incident his parents had gone to their workplace and, he and his sister were at home. He went outside the house for playing. At that time, PW-3's sister was alone at home and she was watching T.V. He stated that when he returned home at about 10:00 a.m for drinking water, he saw his sister sleeping on the bed. At that time, PW- 3 saw blood stains on her leg. He tried to wake her up, however, she was not responding and therefore, PW-3 sprinkled water on her face. She woke up. She complained to PW-3 that she was feeling giddy. Upon enquiry, she told PW-3 about the incident which had taken place. PW-3 took her to the house of PW-6. PW-3 stated that he requested PW-6 to call his mother and accordingly PW-6 made a phone call to his mother.

In cross-examination, PW-3 stated that, on the date of the incident he had not seen the Accused on the spot of the incident. He stated that the Accused used to visit their house. PW-3 stated that, at that relevant time, he had given statement in the police station. PW-3 Manisha 8/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc stated that he had informed the police that the incident had taken place. He stated that his statement was recorded under Section 164 before the learned Judge. The said statement was marked as Exhibit-

27. PW-3 denied that, at that time, there were photographs of his mother in the mobile phone of the Accused. He denied that on that background quarrel took place between the parents of the PW-3 and the Accused.

7. PW-4-Jayesh Rajesh Saidane, was a panch witness in whose presence the Police had seized the clothes of the Accused. The said panchanama was marked as Exhibit-32. Nothing much was extracted in the cross-examination of this panch witness. The cross-examination was taken by the Accused himself as the Advocate was not present. Nothing much turns on his evidence.

8. PW-5-Ashish Anil Dalvi, was a panch witness to the spot panchanama. The said witness stated that he was serving as a fireman in the office of the Fire Brigade of Kharghar. He stated that he had visited the spot along with the Police Officer and another witness. PW- Manisha 9/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 :::

903-APEAL-827-2023.doc 5 stated that the police had seized one pink coloured bedsheet from the spot and signatures of the panch witnesses were obtained on the panchanama. The said panchanama was exhibited as Exhibit-35. The cross-examination of the said witness was denied by the Accused and hence, nothing was recorded in the cross-examination. The spot of incident can hardly be disputed in this case.

9. The Prosecution further examined PW-6-Anisa Ajaj Ansari. PW-6 stated that she resided near the house of the first informant. She stated that on 31/08/2017, she was present in her house. At that time, PW-3 came to her house when she was preparing food and told her that his sister was not waking up and she could be unconscious. PW-6 stated that after fifteen minutes PW-3 came again to the house of the PW-6 along with his sister. The hair of the victim were messy. Her dress was not neat. PW-6 asked the victim to take a bath. When she went to the bathroom, she saw that there was blood on the victim's thigh. PW-6 again took the victim in the hall. Thereafter, PW-2 informed PW-6 about the incident which had taken place. PW-6 called the mother (PW-1) of the victim.

Manisha 10/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 :::

903-APEAL-827-2023.doc In the cross-examination, PW-6 stated that she could not assign any reason as to why she has not stated to the police that she had asked the victim to have bath and when she went to the bathroom and started removing clothes, she saw blood on her thighs. However, this ommission was not put to the Investigating Officer and therefore, nothing much turns on it.

10. Prosecution examined PW-7-Dr. Jaya Shriniwasan, who is a Medical Officer. The said witness stated that on 31/08/2017, PW-7 was present on the duty. On that day, one women Police Constable Mundhe brought the victim girl for medical examination. She examined the victim. As per the history given by the victim and her mother, on 31/08/2017, the Accused had forcibly sexually assaulted the victim. PW-7 had stated that she found that the undergarments of the victim were stained with blood and also found bruises on the middle part of the neck. PW-7 found tear of 0.5 cm on the left of the vagina and labia minora. She stated that injury was fresh, hymen was torn in 6 and 12 o'clock position. Thereafter, PW-7 collected the samples of vaginal swab, blood, nail clipping and hair. The samples Manisha 11/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc were handed over to women Police Constable Mundhe. PW-7 issued report which was exhibited below Exhibit-39. The final opinion was also consistent with the opinion given earlier. FSL Report of the victim was marked as Exhibit-40.

In the cross-examination, the said witness denied that she had written the M.L.C. number after preparing the report. PW-7 denied that the injuries which she had mentioned in the report could be caused due to playing of the children in the school or somewhere else. She denied that the name of the Accused was not told by the victim and her mother.

11. PW-8-Siraj Ibrahim Pewekar, was the Head Master of the School where the victim was studying. He had brought the register stating the victim's date of birth as 02/01/2008. The certified copies of the said original register regarding the birth entry of the victim was exhibited as Exhibit-44.

In the cross-examination, nothing much was asked to the PW-8. Manisha 12/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 :::

903-APEAL-827-2023.doc

12. PW-9-Dr. Arati Krishnaprakash Singh, is the Medical Officer who had examined the Accused. PW-9 stated that on 01/09/2017, the Accused was brought by Police Constable having B. No. 3454 for medical examination from Kharghar police station. PW-9 stated that the Accused gave the history that he knew the victim through her parents. The Accused told her that he had sexually assaulted the victim. The Accused stated that since the victim started crying he ran away. PW-9 examined the Accused. She stated that on general examination, his general condition was normal, vitals were stable. Secondary sexual examination was done. PW-9 conducted local examination for genital and found that the Accused was potent for sexual intercourse. She issued a proforma in her handwriting. The same was exhibited as Exhibit-48. PW-9 had taken samples of nail cuttings, blood, urine, pubic hair, semen for grouping and foreign body analysis. PW-9 filled in the form for submitting the same to the FSL Lab at Kalina. The same was marked as Exhibit-49.

In the cross-examination, PW-9 denied that the Police had Manisha 13/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc given history to her. PW-9 stated that after local examination, she did not find any injury on the private part of the body of the Accused. She denied that the Accused did not give history as stated in the examination in chief.

13. PW-10-Chitra Manmohan Rao was a panch witness. PW-10 stated that she acted as panch to the panchanama whereby the clothes of the victim were seized by the police in her presence. The said panchanama was marked as Exhibit-52. The clothes which were shown to her were identified by her and marked as Article 'A', 'B' and 'C'.

In cross-examination, PW-10 denied that she could not read Marathi properly. She denied that the inner wear which was shown to her as Article 'B' was not torn. PW-10 stated that she was called by the police and reached the police station at about 11:00 a.m. PW-10 denied that she had not seen the police seizing any Articles in her presence.

Manisha 14/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 :::

903-APEAL-827-2023.doc

14. PW-11-Seema Suresh Mundhe is the Investigating Officer. PW-11 stated that she was attached to Kharghar Police Station as PSI. She stated that on 31/08/2017, she was on duty. At that time, the informant brought her daughter in the police station. PW-11 saw that the girl was in bad condition and her clothes were stained with blood. PW-11 took the victim to the hospital for examination. The F.I.R. was recorded. The same was marked as Exhibit-55. PW-11 thereafter, arrested the Accused and prepared the arrest panchanama which is marked as Exhibit-56. PW-11 seized the clothes of the victim as well the Accused. She recorded supplementary statement of the first informant. PW-11 recorded statement of the victim, her brother and other witnesses. She had also obtained the Bonafide Certificate of the victim.

In the cross-examination, PW-11 stated that when the informant came to the police station, one member of Mahila Dakshata Samiti was present. PW-11 had made entry in the station diary before proceeding to the hospital. She stated that the distance from the Kharghar Police Station to the place of incident was about 8.5 k.m. Manisha 15/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 :::

903-APEAL-827-2023.doc PW-11 produced the station diary details before the Court. The same was marked as Exhibit-62. PW-11 stated that she had issued a letter to the medical officer. She denied that the Accused had himself surrendered before the police.

15. PW-12-Dattatray Raosaheb Bhilare is the retired Police Officer. He stated that he was serving as Police Inspector at Kharghar Police Station. PW-12 stated that on 31/08/2017, the F.I.R. was lodged. He stated that he had seized the muddemal and send to C.A. for chemical analysis. PW-12 stated he had accordingly issued letters bearing Exhibit No.68. PW-12 had send letter to Circle Officer for drawing map of spot.

In the cross-examination, PW-12 denied that he did not read the complaint. He stated that he did not record supplementary statement of the informant regarding delay. PW-12 denied that before making statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by witnesses, he had provided the information to the witnesses.

Manisha 16/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 :::

903-APEAL-827-2023.doc

16. The learned Special Judge had recorded the statement of the Accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence of the Accused was that he was having relation with the mother of the victim. But he was married. The photos of the Accused were with the mother of the victim. She threatened the Accused that she will cancel the marriage by showing the photograph and hence, the false case was filed against him. The learned Special Judge after perusing the evidence on record and hearing the arguments of the parties, considering the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the Accused, had held that the Accused has committed the forcible sexual intercourse on the victim. The learned Special Judge meticulously analysed the evidence of the witnesses. The learned Special Judge had reached to a conclusion that forcible sexual intercourse was committed by the Accused upon the victim. The learned Judge thereafter, passed the Judgment which is impugned in this Appeal.

17. The learned Counsel Mr. Sushil A. Inamdar, appointed Advocate through Legal Aid, argued on behalf of the Appellant that there was absence of semen on all the Articles. He argued that the Manisha 17/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc evidence of the chemical analysis did not support the case of the Prosecution. He stated that there was no injury on the body of the Accused. He also stated that there was no major injury on the body of the victim. He submitted that the testimony of the victim does not reveal that the act in question was committed because according to the case of the victim, she herself was unconscious. He submitted that there was no opposition to the said act on the side of the victim. He also argued that there was no penetrative sexual assault. He submitted that there was no intention to commit murder. He argued that, in the event this Court comes to a conclusion that the Accused has committed the offence, in such circumstances, it may be considered that the Accused was only 23 years of age and therefore, punishment which was awarded by the learned Special Judge was very excessive and that, this Court may take a lenient view and reduce the sentence.

18. Ms. Supriya Kak, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State as well as Mr. Siddharth Jagushte, learned appointed Advocate for the Respondent No.2 argued on behalf of the State as well as the first informant. Both of them stated that there was indeed a penetrative Manisha 18/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc sexual assault as contemplated under Section 3 of the POCSO Act, upon the victim. They stated that the statements of the PW-1 and PW- 2 clearly show the manner in which the act was committed by the Accused upon the victim who was nearly 8 years of age at that relevant period of time. Both of them submitted that the injuries were fresh and that the victim became unconscious. They submitted that the medical evidence produced by the Prosecution has supported their case. The medical evidence clearly shows that the act in question was committed. Both of them submitted that there were bruises on the neck and there was tear present on the private part of the victim. They stated that the sentence is appropriate and that taking into consideration the manner in which the incident had taken place, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Special Court. Both of them therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.

19. After hearing both the sides, and perusing the evidence on record and Judgment, it is seen that the Prosecution's case is based on 12 witnesses. PW-1 is the mother of the victim. She had stated that she Manisha 19/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc was not present at the time of the incident as she had gone to a place of her work along with her husband. PW-1 stated that she received a call from PW-6 who informed about the incident. She rushed home. PW-1 stated that the victim told her the manner in which the incident had taken place. In the cross-examination of the said witness, one of the main grounds suggested to her by the defence is that there were certain photographs of the Accused in the mobile of the first informant-PW-1 and that she was misusing the same. However, PW-1 has stoutly denied the same. PW-1 has stood up to her version in the cross-examination too. PW-1 has clearly stated that there were no such photographs. Except this, there were no material on record which would discredit the said witness.

20. PW-2 the victim, has stated in clear terms as to how the offence had taken place. She has stated that when her parents were out for work at that time, the Accused had come home. It is pertinent to note that PW-2 knows the Accused by name as the Accused used to come to their house very often. PW-2 has stated that the said Accused asked here where her parents were. The victim informed that her Manisha 20/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc parents had gone for work. At that time, the Accused committed the forcible sexual act upon her. PW-2 stated that she became unconscious and she regained conscious only after her brother came home. PW-2 has clearly stated that her brother had taken her to PW-6's house. PW- 6 was the tuition teacher of the children. Her house was near the house of the first informant and therefore it was but natural for the children to go to their neighbour. In the cross-examination of PW-2, she was put up a suggestion that the bleeding on her private part was because of the menstrual cycle to which she has denied. The entire evidence of PW-2 was unshattered. The evidence of the prosecutrix therefore, inspires confidence. There is no reason to doubt the evidence of the PW-2. The brother of PW-2 i.e. PW-3 has also stated the incident very succinctly. PW-3 has stated that when he came to the house, he saw that the victim was unconscious. He sprinkled water upon her. He took the PW-2 to PW-6's house. Then PW-6 called PW- 1-mother of the victim. In the cross-examination, the PW-3 had was asked as to whether he had taken the victim directly to the mother to which PW-3 denied. The evidence of this witness also is in conformity Manisha 21/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc to the evidence in the chief. Nothing was extracted in the cross- examination which would discredit the said witness. It is this witness who had brought the victim to the house of PW-6. The clothes of the victim were seized. The panchanama is on record. The spot panchanama also shows that the bedsheet was seized from the spot. Same was sent to FSL. The FSL Report which is on record on the paper book below Exhibit-60 shows that the said bedsheet was stained with blood. Although it is true that the blood grouping was inconclusive, however, the fact remains that the bedsheet was stained with blood.

21. PW-6 has also narrated the manner in which the victim was brought to her home. PW-6 stated that she had seen blood on the thigh of the child. She stated that she had called the mother of the victim and then they went to the police station. The evidence of PW-6 is congruent to the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3. The evidence clearly shows that it is this witness who had called the mother of the victim and it is this witness who had seen the blood on thighs of the victim. Manisha 22/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 :::

903-APEAL-827-2023.doc

22. PW-8 who was the Head Master had exhibited the Birth Certificate. The said entry in the register of the Birth Certificate shows that the date of birth of the victim was 02/01/2008. No attempt was made to discredit this witness, and therefore, the evidence of this witness goes unchallenged and it is safe to rely upon this witness for the purpose of ascertaining the date of birth of the victim. PW-7-Dr. Jaya Shriniwasan has stated the manner in which the victim was brought to her for examination. PW-7 has stated that the undergarments were stained with blood. She has also narrated the extent of injury. The Certificate produced by PW-7 below Exhibit-39 coupled with her ocular evidence clearly shows that there was penetrative sexual assault on the person of the victim. The final opinion was also consistent with the sexual assault upon the victim. Nothing was put up in the cross-examination of the said victim which would discredit her evidence. Thus, it can be safely concluded that there was indeed a penetrative sexual assault upon the body of the child.

23. PW-11 was the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Manisha 23/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc Officer has stated the manner in which the F.I.R. was recorded. She has recorded as to how the investigation was conducted. In the cross- examination, although an attempt was made to question the manner in which the investigation was done, however, the said witness has produced the station diary which clearly corroborates the statement of the said witness PW-11. The station diary was produced below Exhibit-62. PW-12 who was the Investigating Officer who was serving at the Kharghar Police Station has also narrated the manner in which the investigation was carried out.

24. Thus, the fallout of the above discussion is that the Prosecution has clearly proved that the offence of penetrative sexual assault was committed by the Accused upon the victim. The case of the Prosecution is fortified by the statements of PW-1 to PW-3. The learned Special Judge has correctly considered all the aforesaid aspects. The evidence is analysed by the learned Judge very meticulously. Save and except, a vague suggestion that the mother of the victim had some relation with the Accused, no serious attempts were made to prove the same. No serious attempt was made to Manisha 24/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc discredit the testimony of the witnesses. A fallout of all the aforesaid discussion is that, the Prosecution has been successful in establishing that the Accused had committed the offence which is mentioned above. We find no reason to interfere in the well reasoned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Special Judge to the extent of commission of offence of forcible sexual intercourse upon the victim by the Accused.

25. As far as the offence under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, we have perused the medical evidence minutely. The medical evidence relied by the Prosecution does not show that there was any intention on the part of the Accused to commit murder of the victim. The injuries which are on record, more particularly, which are seen in the Injury Certificate which is on record and marked as Exhibit-39 do not show that the injuries were so serious so as to bring the case of the Prosecution within the purview of Section 307 of IPC. The only injuries which are mentioned were bruises and abrasions on the neck. Such injuries would not qualify to convict the Accused under Section Manisha 25/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc 307 of IPC. We have also considered the judgment of the learned Special Judge. No cogent reasons were assigned as to why the Accused was convicted under Section 307 of IPC. We are not in agreement with that part of judgment of the learned Special Judge whereby the Accused was held to have committed offence under Section 307 of the IPC. The Appellant had sufficient opportunity and means to commit murder if he had such intention. But there is nothing to show that he had intention or the requisite knowledge that his act would lead to death of the victim. Resultantly, we set aside, that portion of conviction of the Accused under Section 307 of IPC.

26. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the sentence imposed upon the Accused is quite disproportionate. We have considered the same submission seriously. The Accused was of 23 years of age when the offence in question was committed. The said offence was committed on 31/08/2017. At that time, the minimum punishment which could have been imposed upon the said Accused was 10 years under Section 376(2)(i)(j). In the present case, the Manisha 26/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc learned Special Judge has not assigned any reason as to why the punishment of life imprisonment meant to be punishment till remainder of natural life was imposed upon the Accused. We are of the opinion that there is chance of reformation of the Accused. He was of a very young age when the said offence was committed. The Prosecution has also not pointed out that the Accused had any criminal antecedents to his record.

27. We are of the opinion that the Accused was of very young in age. We are further of the opinion that, the sentence of life imprisonment i.e. imprisonment till remainder of natural life on the Accused was not the only option. We are satisfied that this is a case where leniency can be shown to the Accused. At the relevant time i.e. the day on which the incident had taken place i.e. on 31/08/2017, the minimum sentence which could have been passed for the offences for which the Accused is convicted was 10 years. We therefore, are of the opinion that this is the fit case where the sentence can be reduced. However, since the offence is grave, we are not inclined to reduce it to the minimum sentence. We therefore, are, of the opinion that the Manisha 27/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc sentence of 20 years would serve the purpose.

28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pintu Thakur alias Ravi Etc. Vs. State of Chattisgarh [2025 SCC Online SC 1296] has held as under :

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar. We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the Special Court and which has been affirmed by the impugned order. However, we have considered the second submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants which is in light of Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Section 6 of the said Act reads as under:

"6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault-

Whoever, commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine."

7. On a reading of the same, we find that the minimum punishment delineated under the said Section is twenty years but which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for remainder of natural life of the accused and shall be liable to fine with death. The Special Court has not Manisha 28/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc ordered death penalty but has not considered any mitigating circumstance in the instant case, instead the higher punishment of life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of the person has been imposed which has been affirmed by the High Court

8. However, the minimum sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is twenty years. Bearing in mind the fact that the appellants herein were in their early twenties when the incident took place and the fact that now they have completed only five years of incarceration and even for completion of the minimum sentence it would mean another fifteen years, we find that the appellants are now in their mid twenties and even if the minimum sentence is to be completed they would be in their early forties.

9. We find that the interest of justice would be served in the instant case, if we reduce the sentence imposed on them from imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to twenty years.

29. We are fortified from the Judgment of the Apex Court quoted above. We are of the opinion that in the present case also it would be proper to impose sentence of 20 years. Hence, the Appeal is partly allowed in terms of the following Order.

Manisha 29/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 :::

903-APEAL-827-2023.doc ORDER

(i) The Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2023 is partly allowed.

(ii) The Judgment and Order dated 23/05/2022 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, Panvel-Raigad in Special POCSO Case No.249/2020 is partly set aside.




           (iii)    The Judgment and Order passed by the learned

                    Additional    Special     Judge,      Panvel-Raigad           in

                    Special POCSO Case No.249/2020, convicting

                    the     Appellant   for   commission           of     offence

punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(j) of IPC is confirmed. However, the order of sentence of life imprisonment till remainder of natural life is set aside; instead he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to Manisha 30/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(iv) The conviction imposed on the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 3 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act is confirmed.

However, the order of sentence of imprisonment for life is set aside. Instead, the Appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(v) The conviction imposed on the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 5(m) which is punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is confirmed. However, the order of sentence of imprisonment for life is set aside. Instead, the Appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous Manisha 31/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 ::: 903-APEAL-827-2023.doc imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(vi) The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 7 which is punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month are maintained.

(vii) The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 9(m) which is punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month are maintained.

Manisha 32/33 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 :::

903-APEAL-827-2023.doc

(viii) All the above substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(ix) The Accused is entitled for set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

(x) The Appellant is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

(xi) Copy of the present Judgment be sent by the Legal Aid Authority to the Accused who is in jail.

(xii) Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2023 is disposed of.

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




Manisha                                                                            33/33


 ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026                    ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2026 21:24:34 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court