Ravi Sawade vs State of Maharashtra - Criminal Appeal

## 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 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Ravi S/O. Anil Sawade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 March, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:11188

                                             1                  901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2019
                                    WITH
                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1302 OF 2019
                               IN APEAL/704/2019

                 Ravi S/o. Anil Sawade,
                 Age. 19 years, Occ. Labourer,
                 R/o. Jainab Colony, Dargh Road,
                 Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.                      ...Appellant

                              Versus

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

          2.     XYZ.                                                 ...Respondents
                                             ...
          Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Pokale Dnyaneshwar B.
          APP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. V.K. Kotecha
          Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rahul P. Cheble
                                             ...
                                              CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
                                              DATE : 11TH MARCH, 2026

          ORAL JUDGMENT : 1.         Heard Mr Pokale, learned counsel for the accused/appellant,

          Mr Kotecha, learned APP for the State. Mr Rahul Cheble, learned

          appointed counsel for the victim of the crime.

1.        At the outset, it is necessary to mention here that the record
   
         of the case shows that the name of the victim has appeared on several
                              2                901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt
   

documents. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Nipun Saxena and another Versus Union of India and

others, 2019 (2) SCC 703, the Registry is directed to take steps for

concealing the identity of the victim.

1. Mr Pokale, learned counsel, submits that he will not press

pursis dated 07.01.2026; accordingly, no further orders are required on

pursis dated 07.01.2026.

1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment passed by the

Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge - 3, Parbhani, dated

15.01.2019, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 37/2018, convicting the

appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 376 (1) of

the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter would be referred to as 'the IPC ' for

the sake of brevity). The accused was directed to suffer rigorous

imprisonment of 7 years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer

simple imprisonment of 15 days.

1. The accused, by the same judgment, was acquitted of an

offences punishable under sections 363, 376 (2) (i) of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

3 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

1. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that the accused was

acquitted of offences under the [Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103108231/), as the prosecution did not prove that the victim was below

the age of 18 years, and thus, a child within the meaning of Section 2(1)

(d) of the Act of 2012.

1. In short, it is the case of prosecution that on 09.11.2016, the

present appellant, along with one other person, forcibly asked the victim

to sit in an auto-rickshaw, which was taken in a particular area. Again,

she was asked to sit in another auto-rickshaw (Chhota Hathi), where

some relatives of the appellant were also sitting. The said autorickshaw

was then taken to Nanded, and all of them were shifted in a tractor

trolley. Then, they proceeded towards the village of Kavathe Mahakal for

sugarcane cutting, and on the way, they halted at a petrol pump to sleep.

According to the case of prosecution on the intervening night of

09.11.2016 and 10.11.2016, the victim was subjected to forcible sexual

intercourse at the hands of the appellant. The incident dated 09.11.2016

was not immediately reported to the police station by the victim.

1. It is the case of prosecution that since the victim was a minor

at the time of the incident and she went missing, PW 1, her maternal
4 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

uncle, went to Nanalpeth Police Station, Parbhani, and lodged the first

information report dated 15.11.2016. The offences were added in the first

information report. The said report reveals that information regarding the

victim's disappearance was supplied to the concerned police station,

further stating that the possibility of the victim's kidnapping could not be

ruled out.

1. It is the case of the prosecution that the police took the

appellant and the victim to the police station on 06.12.2016, based on the

call details traced. Thereafter, the first information report was registered.

During the course of investigation, the accused as well as the victim were

forwarded for the medical examination, statement of the witnesses were

recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter

would be referred to as 'the Cr.p.c.' for the sake of brevity), spot

panchnama came to be drawn, clothes of the accused and the victim were

seized and forwarded for chemical analysis and the documents to prove

the date of birth of the child were collected.

1. A chargesheet was filed against three accused--the

submitted chargesheet listed two other individuals: Anil Sawade and

Mangal(bai) Sawade. So far as the accused Anil is concerned, Exhibit 1,
5 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

the final report form, shows that initially he was released on anticipatory

bail, but thereafter neither he attended the police station nor was traced

out.

1. The present accused, before the trial court, claimed himself

to be a child in conflict with the law. On 19.09.2017, the appellant was

produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.Then, the enquiry was

ordered to be conducted, and the preliminary report was submitted on

24.09.2018. Learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani,

considering the material on record and the nature of the offence

committed, stated that there is a need for the trial of the juvenile as per

the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

1. It is in this background that the Special Criminal Case No.

37/2018 was registered against the present accused. Separate criminal

case Special Case No. 14/2017, as seen in Exhibit 1, was then registered

against Mangalbai, the original accused no. 2.

1. Learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, framed

the charge against the accused on 24.09.2018. The accused did not plead

guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the charge, the
6 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

prosecution examined a total of six witnesses. After considering the

evidence available on record and questioning the accused under [Section

313](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/767287/) of the Cr.P.C., the accused was convicted as stated above and

sentenced in accordance with the provisions of Section 235 of the Cr.

P.C. At this stage, it is necessary to mention here that the accused was

questioned under section 313 of the Code of criminal procedure, in which

he had stated that a false case was filed against him.

1. Challenging the aforesaid conviction, learned counsel for the

appellant contended that the judgment passed by the trial court ignores

the evidence available on record and takes an incorrect view. He

submitted that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable

doubt, and since the core of the case was missing, he was rightly

acquitted of the other offences.

1. Learned APP Mr Kotecha contended that there is no reason

to disbelieve PW 4's version, which is cogent and reliable; therefore, the

appeal be dismissed.

1. Learned appointed counsel has contended that there is no

merit in the case advanced by the appellant, as it is not the case of the
7 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

accused that the act was consensual. Just because there was a phone call

between the accused and the victim, it would not mean that it was

consent for sexual intercourse. He relied upon the testimony of the

Medical Officer, i.e., PW 2. PW 2 had contended that there may or may

not be rupture of the hymen in case of forcible sexual intercourse. He

contended that the testimony of the victim, if perused, reveals that she

categorically stated that there was sexual intercourse against her will, she

suffered pain due to it, and the fluid had fallen outside the vagina. He

thus prays for the conviction of the accused.

1. With the help of respective counsels, I have gone through the

record of the case, and also considered the arguments raised by the

parties.

1. The prosecution's case rests solely on the testimony of PW 4,

the victim of the crime. PW 4, in her examination-in-chief, stated that she

was known to the accused and family members, as they resided in front

of her house. Two years before the date of deposition, her mother was

admitted to the hospital, and she used to bring tiffin for her mother. At 9

p.m., when she came out of the hospital to eat Kichdi, the accused, along

with one Pawan, came in a rickshaw. The accused then pushed her in the
8 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

rickshaw, and Pawan sat on one side, whereas Ravi sat on the other side

of the Rickshaw. Then, they took her to a particular area, where another

auto-rickshaw was standing. The victim, the accused, and his mother sat

in a rickshaw, which proceeded towards Nanded and stopped there. They

stayed in Nanded, and the accused's parents, as well as his sister and

brother-in-law, were in an autorickshaw. On the second day at noon, they

left Nanded for the sugarcane factory, and that day they sat in a tractor

with two trolleys.

1. PW 4 deposed that at night they stayed at one hotel (Dhaba)

and left thereafter. When the tractor with a trolley stopped near the petrol

pump, all the female members alighted and took their meal, but the

victim, along with the wife of one Balu, did not alight, despite being

requested by the other female members.

1. Victim stated that after dinner, the accused came to a trolley

where the victim was sleeping, and Pawan was with him. The accused

woke up the victim and asked the victim to sleep beside him. Therefore,

the victim slept, and the accused then slept over her and took the blanket ,

forcibly removed the pants of the victim as well as her knickers and his

own clothes. The accused then had sexual intercourse by way of
9 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

penetration, and the victim had pain, but she was not allowed to go. Her

breast was also pressed, and though the informant was crying, the

accused did not permit her to go.

1. She deposed that some sticky water/material fell on her

thigh . The victim then put on her clothes, and the accused asked her not

to call anybody. The accused then slept beside her, and so did the victim.

The next day, the accused woke the victim but didn't permit the victim to

narrate the incident to anyone. She deposed that the next day they went to

cut sugarcane at a particular place, where the mother of the accused

cooked the food. The victim came to know that the police from

Nanalpeth had reached on that place to search for them, and when the

accused came to know the aforesaid fact, the mother of the accused hid

the victim in sugarcane trees and asked her not to come out.

1. Thereafter, the parents of the accused sent the victim and the

father of the accused to Mumbai, where they stayed at the house of the

accused's brother, where the brother's wife was also residing. She

deposed that there were repeated phone calls by the police to the father of

the accused and brother Sunil. Thereafter, the accused's brother and

father left Mumbai with the victim and reached Parbhani. At the railway 10 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

station, the police arrived and the accused was with them. Then, in a

rickshaw, they went to Nanalpeth police station. Police then enquired

from her. The victim underwent a medical examination.

1. In cross-examination, the victim admitted that her father had

died ten years ago and she has six brothers and sisters. Her family was

under financial constraints due to the death of her father, and her brother

used to work in a hotel, and another used to ply a rickshaw. She admitted

that before the incident, she used to talk on the mobile with the accused,

and the accused had informed her that he and his family were going to

cut sugarcane. She also admitted that Ravi belongs to a low-income

family. She had also admitted that in the autorickshaw there were four to

five male and four to five female members, and that at Nanded they

stayed at the house of Mukadam. She admitted that at Nanded, four

persons also joined them in a tractor trolley, at which time she did not

have her mobile. She stated that before half an hour of 09:00 p.m., she

had spoken with the accused and denied that she spoke with the accused

at 09:00 p.m. She could not tell why it was stated in the statement that

she spoke with Ravi at 09:00 p.m.

1. She admitted that she didn't raise any hue and cry when she

was forced to sit in a rickshaw, and that she didn't attempt to run away 11 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

while residing with the family of the accused. She stated that she used to

take care of the accused's sister's children, and other people used to go

for sugarcane cutting. The victim had stated that the fact that she had not

received a phone call from her sister Manisha and was not informed

about the death of her mother, this fact she had not disclosed to the

police, still, it was written in her statement. She showed her ignorance

about the same.

1. She stated that the place where they had resided while

cutting the sugarcane, there were 10 to 15 huts, and she had not disclosed

the incident of forcible sexual intercourse to anybody except the police

for the first time. She stated that she used to wear the accused's sister's

clothes.

1. In cross-examination, the omissions were put to the victim

that she went near the gate of government hospital at 09:00 p.m. for

eating Khichdi, accused with one Pawan came there with rickshaw,

accused pushed her in auto-rickshaw forcibly and on both the sides

accused and Pawan sat, mother of Ravi had asked him not to come out of

sugarcane field, mother of Ravi had sent victim and Ravi's father to

Mumbai, we went to Mumbai and stayed at the house of brother of 12 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

accused, where the wife of brother of accused was also there, police had

telephoned Sunil and I, Sunil and father of Ravi, reached Parbhani at 4

'O' clock in the morning by Nandigram Railway. These omissions were

put to the Investigating Officer, i.e., PW 5, in paragraphs nos. 10 and 11

of the deposition, which were duly proved.

1. As the victim was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse,

she was referred for medical examination at the hands of PW 2 - Dr Kazi

Nazneen, who had stated that she had received a letter for medical

examination of the victim from the concerned police station and said she

had proved the letter below, Exhibit 9. Further part of the deposition of

this witness shows that she followed the procedure, asked about the

history of the victim, to which it was stated to her that on 09.11.2016, the

accused had committed sex with her, against her will. PW 2 had stated

that she could not find any external injuries, and there were no genital

injuries. She collected the samples for forensic examination.

1. In short, it is the case of the defence that PW 2 had not

stated anything about the forcible sexual intercourse and her final opinion

was reserved till receipt of the FSL report, which, in fact, was not 13 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

received. Consequently, no final opinion was given. The victim's medical

report is shown in Exhibit 10.

1. In cross-examination, this witness had admitted that there

were no positive signs of sexual violence, and she further volunteered

that the hymen may remain intact during sexual intercourse. In short, the

defence contended that the testimony of PW 2, in fact, supports the

defence case rather than the prosecution.

1. PW 1 is the uncle of the victim who had stated that as the

mother of the victim was admitted to the hospital, he went to meet her

and on 09.11.2016, his nephew by the name Atul informed PW1 that the

victim had run away. He therefore went to the police station and lodged a

report, where his statement was recorded. Exhibit 6 is the statement of

PW 1. In cross-examination, nothing fruitful was brought on record.

1. The prosecution examined PW 3 to prove the age of the

victim. As the trial court has already acquitted the accused of the

commission of offences under the Act of 2012, and the said acquittal is

not challenged, I do not find that the discussion of the testimony of PW 3, 14 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

who was the Headmistress, would be relevant for deciding the present

appeal.

1. The investigation was carried out by two officers, namely

PW 5 and PW 6. PW 6 - Shaikh Javed, who was attached as PSI with the

police station, had stated that he had recorded the statement of the mother

of the victim, her brothers and sisters, and also drew a spot panchnama

below Exhibit 16. He stated that he submitted a letter to obtain the call

detail records for the mobile number mentioned in the first information

report, and the letter is shown below as Exhibit 33.

1. On the basis of the tower location, the accused was arrested,

for which he had sent two constables, Mr Kagne and Mr Dahiphade. He

submitted that on 05.12.2016, the victim came to the police station along

with the father of the accused, and on that date, the victim's statement

was recorded by Lady PSI Babhale. In cross-examination, an attempt was

made to bring on record that the suggestion was made that the statements

of the victim, her sisters, and brothers were not recorded. The cross-

examination of the Investigating Officer may not be relevant. 15 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

1. PW 5 is the second Investigating Officer who stated about the

procedure that was followed for conducting the medical examination of

the victim and seizure of clothes in the presence of two panchas. She also

proved the arrest panchnama, Exhibit 21, and the various documents. She

stated that the statement of the victim was also recorded under Section

164 of Cr. P.C. In cross-examination, it was brought on record that PW 5

recorded the statements of the persons who were with the victim for 25

days, and that he did not collect CCTV footage from Civil Hospital,

Parbhani.

1. In this background, it is necessary to look into whether the

prosecution has proved the commission of an offence under [section 376

(1)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/455161/) of the IPC. Section 376 (1) of the IPC prescribes punishment for rape. Section 375 of the IPC defines rape, and so far as the present appeal is

concerned, the relevant part which defines rape as the rape is insertion of

the penis into the vagina of a woman.

1. If the manner in which the story advanced by the

prosecution is taken into consideration, it would reveal that the victim

had come to the gate of the hospital at 9 'o' clock in the morning, where

she was forced to sit in an auto-rickshaw, and on both sides, the accused 16 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

and one more person sat. Thereafter, she was taken in another auto-

rickshaw where the family members of the accused were also sitting.

Then she shifted the tractor, which had trolleys, and four to five other

persons also joined. Some of them enjoyed the food at a hotel/Dhaba, but

the victim, along with one more lady, i.e., the wife of Balu, was in the

trolley itself. The accused, at that time, came and committed sexual

intercourse.

1. Thus, it is crystal clear that it was the case of prosecution that

it was the trolley where alleged sexual intercourse had taken place. It is

further clear that at the relevant time, one lady, i.e., the wife of Balu, was

also present. The prosecution does not dispute that the tractor with a

trolley was not seized. Considering the aforesaid aspect, it becomes very

difficult to test the contention of the prosecution regarding whether the

victim was really subjected to forcible sexual intercourse when another

lady was present with the victim. Said lady is not examined by the

prosecution.

1. Further, it is undisputed that at the relevant time, the tractor

with the trolley had stopped near the petrol pump. Thus, it cannot be

ruled out that several other persons were near the petrol pump. It can also 17 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

be said that the place from which the victim was first taken was the

hospital, and several people would have been present there. The

Investigating Officer did not attempt to find out the aforesaid fact.

1. As the previous and subsequent conduct of any party to the

proceedings is important under the provisions of the [Indian Evidence

Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1953529/), it is further necessary to mention here that the victim had admitted

that she used to talk with the accused on the mobile. The victim was

informed that the accused and his family were going to cut sugarcane. It

has also come on record that the financial condition of the victim is

extremely weak. Thus, it can be said that it was the victim who, on her

own, went with the accused and the family members, maybe for doing a

labour work. The record further shows that for more than 27 days, the

victim was with the accused and his family members. She had admitted

that she used to take care of the children of the accused's sister, and other

persons used to go to cut sugarcane. She also admitted that near there hut

there were more than 10 to 15 huts. Thus, the subsequent conduct of the

victim of staying with the family members of the accused, using the

clothes of the sister of the accused, not disclosing anything to any person,

and not attempting to run away clearly shows that the prosecution has not

proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt that it's case. 18 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

1. It is further pertinent to mention here that the trial court has

already concluded that the victim was not a minor at the time of the

incident. In light of that, only the victim's testimony is required to be

considered. The delay in lodging the first information report is also not

explained by the prosecution, which goes to the root of the matter.

1. No doubt, it is not the requirement of the law that the delay

be explained with specific reasons, but at least something should have

been brought on the record as to why the victim did not make any attempt

to narrate the incident to anybody. It is nobody's case that either family

members of the accused or the accused himself has threatened the victim

for not disclosing the offence. The investigating officer had further

admitted that it was the father of the accused who had taken the victim to

the police station. The aforesaid facts clearly show that the ring of truth is

missing from the case of prosecution, and the genesis of the crime is not

brought on record.

1. At this stage, it is necessary to note that although a conviction

can be awarded based on the sole testimony of the victim, in the present

case, considering the stand taken by the prosecution and the delay in

lodging the FIR, the rule of prudence requires corroboration. The 19 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

prosecution should have provided corroboration of PW 4's testimony.

The question is whether the victim's testimony is of sterling quality. In

that regard, the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Nirmal Premkumar and another Versus State represented by

Inspector of Police, 2024 (20) SCC 293, more particularly, paragraph

nos. 22, 23 and 24 are relevant, which read as under :

"22. This Court was tasked to adjudicate a matter
involving gang rape allegations under section 376(2)(g),
I.P.C in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8
SCC 21. The Court found totally conflicting versions of
the prosecutrix, from what was stated in the complaint
and what was deposed before the Court, resulting in
material inconsistencies. Reversing the conviction and
holding that the prosecutrix cannot be held to be a
'sterling witness', the Court opined as under:

"22. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness'
should be of a very high quality and calibre whose
version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court,
considering the version of such a witness, should be in a
position to accept it at face value without hesitation. To
test the quality of such a witness, the status of the
witness would be immaterial, and what would be
relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by
such a witness. What would be more relevant would be
the consistency of the statement right from the starting 20 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness
makes the initial statement and ultimately before the
court. It should be natural and consistent with the case
of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be
any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The
witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it
may be and under no circumstance should give room for
any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the
persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a
version should have correlation with each and every one
of the other supporting materials, such as the recoveries
made, the weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the expert
opinion. The said version should consistently match the
version of every other witness. It can even be stated that
it should be akin to the test applied in the case of
circumstantial evidence, where there should not be any
missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the
accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if
the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as
well as all other similar tests to be applied, can it be
held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling
witness' whose version can be accepted by the court
without any corroboration and based on which the guilty
can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the
said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should 21 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

remain intact. At the same time, all other attendant
materials, namely, oral, documentary and material
objects should match the said version in material
particulars to enable the court trying the offence to rely
on the core version to sieve the other supporting
materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge
alleged."
(underlining ours, for emphasis)

1. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, this Court laid down that although the victim's solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offences is generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix's testimony is found unreliable and insufficient due to identified flaws and lacunae. It was held thus:

"31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty
for the commission of an offence of rape, the solitary
evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the
same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely
trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality. But, in
the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix,
showing several lacunae, which have already been
projected hereinabove, would go to show that her
evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be 22 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said
offences.

1. Indeed, there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to get her evidence corroborated independently, which they could have done either by examination of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were present in the house at the time of her alleged abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi, though cited as a witness, was not examined and later given up by the public prosecutor on the ground that the appellant had won her over."
2. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a "sterling witness" without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistencies excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt as to the prosecution's case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, 23 901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

             marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it
             difficult for a conviction to be recorded."

1. If the aforesaid observations of the court are looked into, it

would be crystal clear that the core spectrum of the crime has not

remained intact. Even other attending circumstances do not favour the

prosecution. In that view of the matter, I conclude that the prosecution

has not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court's

findings are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. Hence,

the following order is passed:

ORDER

i. The judgment passed by the Special Judge and Additional

Sessions Judge-3, Parbhani, dated 15.01.2019, in Special (POCSO)

Case No. 37/2018, so far as convicting the appellant for the

commission of an offence under section 376 (1) of the IPC, is set

aside.

ii. The accused is acquitted of the commission of an offence

punishable under Section 376 (1) of the IPC.

iii. The fine amount deposited, if any, shall be refunded to the

accused.
24
901Cri.Appeal.704.2019.odt

iv. The accused be released forthwith, if his custody is not

required in any other proceedings.

v. At this stage, word of appreciation is required to be noted for

the able assistance given by Advocate Mr Rahul Cheble, who,

within a short time, has argued the matter and pointed out various

documents to support his case. Since he was appointed to represent

the victim, his fee is quantified at Rs. 12000/-.

vi. Pending Criminal Application also stands disposed of.

( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )

SPC