Mayur Somanath Sonwane vs State of Maharashtra - Criminal Application

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Issues | Petitioner's Arguments |
| 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 5, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Mayur Somanath Sonwane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 March, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:12048

                                                                  CriAppln-4471-2025
                                                -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4471 OF 2025
                                            IN
                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 899 OF 2025

             Mayur s/o Somnath Sonwane,
             Age : 32 years, Occu Labour,
             R/o Kombawadi, Taluka Shrirampur,
             District Ahmednagar.                              ... Applicant

                    Versus

             1.     The State of Maharashtra,
                    Through Police Station,
                    Incharge Veegaon,
                    Taluka Vaijapur,
                    District Aurangabad.

             2.     X. Y. Z.                                    ... Respondent
                                                 .....
                           Mr. D. A. Paikrao, Advocate for the Applicant.
                          Mr. B. B. Bhise, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                  Ms. Sarita Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (appointed)
                                                 .....

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

             ORDER : 1.     Present application is for suspension of sentence imposed by

             learned Special Judge (under [POCSO Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103108231/)), Vaijapur, District

             Aurangabad in Special Case No. 258 of 2023 decided on 01.11.2025

             convicting the applicant for offence under Sections 376(2)(f)(n) of
                                                   CriAppln-4471-2025 [IPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/) as well as [Sections 4](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26275631/), [6](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183539218/) and [8](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188860642/) of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, applicant was

tried vide above Sessions Case for above Sections. According to him,

though age of victim is shown to be 14 years, there was no convincing

and cogent evidence on the point of age. That, there was no

corroboration in the form of date of birth certificate. He pointed out

that, victim has admitted in cross that there earlier there was a

dispute. That, moreover, mother of victim is also unable to give exact

date of her marriage or date of giving birth to the victim. That,

scientific evidence does not support prosecution. He further pointed

out that, no ossification test has been conducted and as such, there is

long list of grounds on merits to be agitated in appeal. However, as

appeal would take long time to be heard and sentence is of 20 years,

he prays for relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

1. Both, learned APP as well as learned counsel appointed to

represent the complainant, justify the order of conviction to be

perfectly on merits and in line with the evidence on record. Both

pointed out that, victim has given her DOB in the testimony as

17.05.2009. Allegations are since April 2023. That, prosecution has
CriAppln-4471-2025

adduced evidence of Head Master as PW5 who has placed on record

extract of school admission as well as TC and as such, on the point of

date of birth, there is convincing evidence apart from that of victim

and her parents. They also point out that there is supportive medical

evidence upon examination of victim.

1. In above context, evidence on record is put to scrutiny. In

support of above charge, prosecution seems to have adduced evidence

of as many as eight witnesses including that of victim, her parents,

school authority and medical experts. Copy of the Judgment of trial

court is also placed on record. Going by the above discussed record,

i.e. testimony of victim and school extract, she seems to be 14 years of

age. There is evidence of Head Master PW5 who carried original

admission register. Victim was at that time shown to be studying in 8 th

standard. After complete analysis, trial court has recorded a finding

that prosecution has proved that victim is minor. As regards to offence

is concerned, testimony of victim is relevant and her evidence has

remained unshaken and rather finds support from the evidence of her

father.

1. As regards to medical evidence is concerned, there is evidence

of doctor PW7 who has deposed about the findings to which she came
CriAppln-4471-2025

across and she finally opined that sexual assault could not be ruled

out. Consequently, there is evidence that victim, at the time of

incident, was minor and she being taken away from the custody of

parents without their consent. Therefore taking into account the

nature of allegations and gravity of offence, this court does not think

it to be a fit case to extend benefit of suspension of sentence and

grant of bail. Hence, following order :

ORDER

I. The Application is dismissed.

II. Fees of learned counsel appointed to represent respondent no.2
to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
Aurangabad, as per Rules.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre