Deepak Baliram Kendre vs The State Of Maharashtra - Criminal Application

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Court's Reasoning |
| Conclusion | |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 10, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Deepak Baliram Kendre vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 March, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:12047

                                                                 CriAppln-4311-2025
                                                -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4311 OF 2025
                                          IN
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 862 OF 2025

             Deepak Baliram Kendre
             Age : 21 years, Occ. Education,
             R/o. Kendrewadi,
             Taluka Ambajogai, District Beed.                  ... Applicant

                   Versus

             1.    The State of Maharashtra
                   Through Police Station Officer,
                   Police Station Dharur,
                   Dharur, District Beed.

             2.    ABC                                         ... Respondents
                                              .....
                       Mr. B. S. Chondhekar, Advocate for the Applicant.
                       Mr. N. S. Tekale, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                       Mr. Akash D. Gade, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                              .....

                                      CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                      Reserved on   : 18.03.2026
                                      Pronounced on : 23.03.2026

             ORDER : 1.    Convict in Special Case No. 15 of 2024 for offence under [Section 376(3)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23642035/) of IPC, [Section 3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1507082/) punishable under [Section 4(2)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/210986/), [Section 7](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1597655/) punishable under [Section 8](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1738671/), [Section 9](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1977541/) punishable under [Section 10](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1980183/) and [Section 11](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/668722/) punishable under [Section 12](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101331313/) of the

             Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short,

             ' [POCSO Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103108231/) '), prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

CriAppln-4311-2025

1. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that, applicant is

barely 18 years of age. There were love relations between him and

victim. That, prosecution had not placed cogent and reliable evidence

in support of age of victim and as such, her age was not proved

beyond reasonable doubt. He pointed out that, only school extract

was gathered by the Investigating Officer and it was straightway

accepted by the trial court. His further contention is that, here,

medical evidence is not convincingly proving offence of rape and

therefore, applicant has a good on merits in appeal, however

according to him, as it would take long time to be heard, he prays for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

1. Above application is opposed by both, learned APP as well as

learned counsel for the complainant. It is pointed out by learned APP

that, there is convincing, trustworthy and reliable testimony of victim

and therefore, under such circumstances, though there is no

requirement of independent corroboration, there is evidence of

mother. That, medical evidence supports the occurrence. They both

pointed out that victim being minor of 12 years, theory of love

relations is of no significance. For all above counts, relief of

suspension of sentence and grant of bail is sought to be rejected.

CriAppln-4311-2025

1. After considering the above submissions and on going through

the record, it seems that victim is examined as PW2. She gave her

date of birth as 20.08.2010. In short, her testimony is that when her

parents were out for work and she was alone in the house on account

of Diwali Vacation, accused neighbour came and reminded her of his

previous proposal to accompany him to Pune and perform marriage,

which she had refused. It is further alleged that he closed the door,

tied her both hands, gagged her, undressed her, got himself

undressed and committed sexual intercourse. She claims to have

managed to rescue herself from his clutches and even managed to

give call to her mother who came, after which accused allegedly ran

away and therefore, they approached police.

1. Evidence of victim's mother is in the capacity of PW1 and she

claims to have heard screams of her daughter and rushed home and

has noticed accused coming out of the house and fleeing.

1. In support of age, prosecution seems to have adduced evidence

of PW3 in-charge Head Master, who placed on record admission

extract of the school admission register Exhibit 42 wherein victim was

shown to have taken admission in the 1 st Standard and her date of

birth is shown as 20.08.2010. PW4 and PW6 are the medical experts,
CriAppln-4311-2025

who issued certificates Exhibits 44 and 51 respectively. consequently,

there is overwhelming evidence. Apparently victim is shown to be 12

years of age at the time of incident. Though applicant is shown to be

18 years and some months, he also seems to have a track record of

criminal antecedents. Taking into account the nature of allegations

and gravity of offence, this court does not think it to be a fit case to

extent benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Hence,

following order :

ORDER

The application is rejected.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre