Bombay High Court

PANKAJ BAPU BACHHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies, and the appeal was allowed, resulting in acquittal.

Summary

The appellant was convicted under Section 354A of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act for allegedly pressing the breast and kissing a minor victim on 20-21 July 2021. The prosecution relied primarily on the victim's testimony, her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and documentary evidence such as the birth certificate. On appeal, the defence highlighted material inconsistencies between the victim's statements to the police, the magistrate, and in court, as well as discrepancies in the informant's evidence, arguing that these created reasonable doubt. The State contended that the victim's age justified overlooking minor inconsistencies and that her testimony alone was sufficient for conviction. The Court examined the inconsistencies, noted the lack of corroborative evidence, and held that the prosecution had not discharged the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant of both charges, and ordered any fine paid to be refunded. The judgment underscores the necessity of consistency and corroboration in sexual assault cases involving minors.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction under Section 354A IPC and Section 8 POCSO can be sustained despite material inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.
Whether the sole testimony of a minor victim is sufficient for conviction without corroboration.
Whether the identified inconsistencies create reasonable doubt warranting acquittal.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 354A
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 2(d), 8

Subjects

POCSO
sexual assault
minor
reasonable doubt
evidentiary inconsistency
acquittal
Section 354A IPC

Judgment

2 APEAL 1131-24-CR.DOC

Priya Soparkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2024

Mr. Pankaj Bapu Bachhav, Age 40 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, r/o Raje Shanti Co-
operative Housing Society, Shiv Road, Near
Nivant Bar, Dabhadi Vicinity, Tal.
Malegaon, District (Nashik)(At present
serving the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment) (At present in Nashik Road …Appellant
Central Jail). (Org. Accused)

~ versus ~

1. The State of Maharashtra,
through office in-charge of
Malegaon Chhavani Police
Station, Malegaon Rural.
2. XYZ (through Malegaon
Chhavani Police Station,
Malegaon Rural). …Respondents

A PPEARANCES
For the Appellant Mr. Shrikant Gadade
For Respondent No.2 Ms. Shradha D. Sawant (Appointed
legal-aid Advocate)
For the State Mr. A. S. Gawai, APP.

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.

RESERVED ON : 28TH JANUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2026.

Digitally
signed by
PRIYA
PRIYA RAJESH
RAJESH SOPARKAR
SOPARKAR Date:
2026.02.04
11:50:23
+0530
Page 1 of 6
nd
2 February, 2026.
2 APEAL 1131-24-CR.DOC

JUDGMENT :-

1. This appeal takes exception the judgment and order dated
17th August, 2024 passed in Special POCSO Case No.64 of 2021,
whereby the Appellant came to be convicted for the offenses
punishable under Section 354A of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act
and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of four years,
with fine of Rs.20,000/- with default sentence.

2. First Informant-father of the victim lodged report on 22 nd
July, 2021 with Chhavani police station, Malegaon stating that on
that day, his daughter(victim) informed him about the incident
occurred on 20th July, 2021. He stated to the police that his
daughter told him about occurrence of the incident on 21 st July,
2021, at 8.15 p.m. as well. She disclosed the incident occurred on
20th July, 2021 by stating that accused pressed her breast and
kissed her. On receiving the said information, Informant went to
the accused and confronted him with the said incident, and had
also beaten him before he was brought to the police station.
Offence came to be registered vide C.R. No.279 of 2021 with the
said police station. Investigation was carried out in the said
offence. Accused was arrested. Victim was sent for medical
examination. Statement was recorded under Sections 161 as well
as 164 of Cr.P.C. Statements of witnesses were also recorded. On
completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed before the
competent Court.

3. Charge was framed against the accused vide Exhibit 10. The
accused denied the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution examined
following five witnesses: PW 1-Victim, PW 2-Bharat Popat Nikam,

Page 2 of 6
nd
2 February, 2026.
2 APEAL 1131-24-CR.DOC

PW 3 -Prashant Uttam Sonawane, PW 4 -Informant and PW 5-
Jayesh Piraji Patil.

4. Prosecution also relied upon statement of victim under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., birth certificate of the victim, Seizure
panchanama, medical report of the victim and other documentary
evidence. The learned Trial Court found evidence led by the
prosecution sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence,
recorded conviction against him by the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that having
regard to the nature of evidence and more particularly,
inconsistencies in the statement of the victim with regard to the
occurrences of the incident, it is unsafe to convict the accused for
the offences charged against him. It is his submission by the
drawing attention of the Court to the testimony of the Informant-
PW 4 and victim-PW 1 that their statements are contrary to the
statements recorded in the FIR, so also under Sections 161 and
164 of Cr.P.C.. It is his submission that in such cases and having
regard to the nature of allegation, there must be complete
consistency in the evidence of prosecution, and if it is not there, no
conviction can be recorded against the accused. By drawing
attention of the Court to the testimony of the victim, it is argued
that victim gives altogether different version of the incident than
her previous statements, and hence, her testimony becomes
doubtful. It is submitted that suggestions made to the victim and
Informant indicates that there were disputes between the
Informant and the accused, and hence this is the case of false
implication.

Page 3 of 6
nd
2 February, 2026.
2 APEAL 1131-24-CR.DOC

6. Learned APP and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2
supported impugned judgment and order. According to them, sole
testimony of victim would be sufficient to convict accused without
seeking any further corroboration. It is their contention that having
regard to the age of the victim, minor inconsistencies if have
occurred in her evidence needs to be ignored. It is submitted that
there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is falsely
implicated in crime in question. It is argued that though the victim
admits in her cross- examination that her version about the
incident is not appearing in statement before the police as well as
Magistrate, in fact, such statement does appear therein. It is
submitted that there would not be any reason for the Informant
and victim to falsely implicate the accused in this crime.

7. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition
of law that in case, testimony of the victim of sexual assault is free
from doubt and is of sterling quality, it would be open for the
Court to convict the accused without seeking any further
corroboration.

8. In order to prove offence under POCSO Act, prosecution at
the first instance required to prove that victim is minor and hence,
child under Section 2(d) of the Act. Prosecution examined
Prashant Sonawane (PW 3), clerk with Chalisgoan Municipal
Council to prove birth certificate of victim (Exhibit 22). In the
cross-examination of this witness nothing is elicited to disbelieve
his testimony. Prosecution therefore has proved that date of birth
of victim is 13th March, 2013 and thus, she is child under the Act.

Page 4 of 6
nd
2 February, 2026.
2 APEAL 1131-24-CR.DOC

9. Here in this case, the incidents have occurred on 20 th July,
2021 and 21st July, 2021. As per the first information report on 20 th
July, 2021 the accused said to have rubbed the breast of the victim
and on the next day i.e. on 21 st July, 2021 he said to have kissed
her and asked her to come to terrace. In this regard, the substantial
evidence of the victim shows that the first incident has occurred in
front of the house on ota. She claims that accused rubbed her
breast by putting hand in her shirt. She accepts that the said place
i.e. ota is visible to others in the building around the same. She
further states that she informed to Magistrate about the fact that
accused was sitting on ota and occurrence of incident there but
was unable to give reason for no mention about the same in the
statement. According to her, on the next day, when she was called,
accused kissed her on her cheeks and made gestures to her to
come to the terrace. She also states that accused put mouth into
her mouth. She however made excuse and went home, did not go
to terrace. In her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.,
however, she claims that accused licked her face and blinked
towards her and asked her to come to the terrace. The statement
made before the Trial Court, therefore, materially defers from the
statement made to the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C..
Even if it is accepted that some concession needs to be given while
assessing testimony of victim owning to her age, however, it would
not be open for the Court to ignore the material inconsistencies in
the manner of occurrence of incident itself. Apart from material
inconsistencies there are other variable in the evidence of
Informant with regard to victim going for tuition to accused, victim
stating gestures made by accused by his fingers for calling her to
terrace etc.

Page 5 of 6
nd
2 February, 2026.
2 APEAL 1131-24-CR.DOC

10. The Informant as well as the victim were suggested of
previous disputes between the parties i.e. Informant and accused.
There are discrepancies in the evidence of victim with regard to
exact occurrence of incident with which creates doubt about her
version. The first incident is allegedly occurred at place within
public view, but there is no evidence even to indicate that both
victim and accused were at least seen together. It is settled
position of law that in case of reasonable doubt being created in
the case of the prosecution, benefit thereof deserves to be given to
the accused. Thus, it cannot be held that prosecution has proved
the guilt of accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

11. In such circumstances, the following order is passed:-

ORDER

I. Appeal stands allowed.

II. Appellant stands acquitted for the offenses punishable
under Section 354A of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act in
connection with Crime No.279 of 2021 registerd with
Chhavani Police Station.

III. The fine amount paid, if any, be refunded to the
accused.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{

Page 6 of 6
nd
2 February, 2026.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…