AJIT @ BALU S/O. RAMESHRAO SHETEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:43143


                                                                      CriAppeal-136-2016
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 136 OF 2016

                 Ajit @ Balu s/o Rameshrao Shete,
                 Age 42 years, Occupation Agriculturist,
                 R/o. Sushiladevi Nagar, Old Ausa Road,
                 Latur, Taluka and District Latur.                 … Appellant
                                                                   [Ori. Accused]
                       Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Police Station Shivaji Nagar,
                 Latur, Taluka and District Latur.                 … Respondent

                                                 ..…
                         Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for the Appellant.
                          Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent-State.
                                                 …..

                                          CORAM :       ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                          Reserved on        : 22.09.2026
                                          Pronounced on      : 23.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.    In this appeal by convict, there is challenge to the judgment and

                 order dated 29.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-

                 2, Latur in Special Case (POCSO) No. 50 of 2014, by which appellant

                 is held guilty for offence under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 of IPC and

                 Sections 8, 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

                 Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the maximum sentence awarded is

                 rigorous imprisonment for three years.
                                                    CriAppeal-136-2016
                                 -2-




2.    In short, case of prosecution in trial court was that, victim, a

minor studying in 8th standard, used to proceed to school over old

Ausa road. Accused appellant used to intercept her way with ill

intentions i.e. on 01.09.2014 and 19.09.2014. When she informed

about it to her family members, accused was given understanding.

However, on 22.09.2014 also, while she was proceeding to school,

accused intercepted her, questioned her for attending school, pulled

her veil (dupatta) and pressed her breast and thereby outraged her

modesty. Report to that extent was lodged with Shivajinagar Police

Station where crime was registered and it was investigated by PW6

who, after gathering sufficient evidence, chargesheeted appellant-

accused and he was made to face trial before the court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge, who appreciated the oral evidence of six

witnesses examined by prosecution and after hearing both sides, held

the charges to be proved and accordingly convicted appellant as

stated above. Hence instant appeal.



3.    Learned counsel for the appellant-accused took this Court

through the evidence of victim, her grandmother and sister, and

would submit that they are not consistent. Moreover, according to

him, there is sole testimony of victim but the same cannot be relied
                                                     CriAppeal-136-2016
                                  -3-

primarily for the reason that, there is no corroboration to the same.

That, victim was never referred for medical examination and only

accused was referred for medical examination.



4.    Next limb of his argument is that, when case of prosecution is

that grandmother was accompanying victim, how she did not notice

the incident or heard shouts and cries by victim. He also questions

failure of prosecution in examining the other students who were also

on the road. According to him, no independent witness has been

examined even when the alleged incident had happened over a

crowded and busy road. He pointed out that, testimony of victim in

court is at variance than the statement given by her before learned

Magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC. He would strenuously submit

that, it was the story of prosecution that there was gagging of the

victim by handkerchief and that, accused committed the act at knife

point, but neither handkerchief nor knife is seized by prosecution and

for said reason, he raises doubt about prosecution story.



5.    For all above reasons, he questions the story of prosecution as

well as sustainability of the impugned judgment and prays to set aside

the impugned judgment.
                                                      CriAppeal-136-2016
                                  -4-




6.    In answer to above, learned APP also took this Court through

the testimony of prosecution witnesses and more particularly that of

victim. He pointed out that there is no challenge to the minority of

victim and there is also no serious challenge that she was using Ausa

road to reach her school. According to him, accused resided in the

same locality and he was persistently intercepting the way of victim

with ill intentions. He pointed out that, apart from the incident dated

22.09.2014, on previous occasions also accused used to block way of

the victim. That, victim had reported it to her family members and

grandmother of victim had asked brother of accused to give

understanding to accused and there is no denial to that extent.



7.    Learned APP would further submit that, learned trial court

committed no error in applying Section 29 of the POCSO Act to draw

presumption as, according to him, foundational facts were duly

proved by prosecution. For all above reasons, he justifies conviction

and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.



8.    Heard. Re-appreciated the evidence. Though there is evidence

of six witnesses, in trial court, there does not seem to be serious

challenge to the minority of victim. Even before this Court, no doubt
                                                      CriAppeal-136-2016
                                  -5-

is raised about her minority. Here, in view of the nature of allegations

and charge, crucial evidence is of victim and the same is re-

appreciated.



9.    At Exhibit 37, victim testified that she resides with her

grandmother and elder sisters and that she was studying in 8 th

standard. After giving her date of birth, she identified accused before

the court and deposed that she knew him. She testified that on

22.09.2014 between 7.00 to 7.15 a.m. while she was proceeding to

school, accused approached her, intercepted her way, pulled her veil

(dupatta) with mala fide intention and pressed her breasts after

gagging her with handkerchief so that she could not shout. According

to her, there was no crowd on the road but few students when came

near her, at that time accused fled. She testified that, on 01.09.2014

as well as 19.09.2014, accused had intercepted her way and by

pointing knife, threatened her to not to go to school and he also

teased her. The last episode dated 22.09.2014 was reported to her

father who reached Latur and they approached police.



      While under cross, she admitted that prior to 01.09.2014, she

was not knowing accused. She is asked whether she in her statement

to police stated that accused pointed knife and threatened her on
                                                     CriAppeal-136-2016
                                 -6-

01.09.2014 and 19.09.2014. The manner of cross in paragraph 3

shows that occurrence is got confirmed as victim has stated that

accused pulled her dupatta with the same hand with which he held

handkerchief and she answered that, he threw her dupatta on the

ground. She denied sustaining any scratch or bruise. She answered

that after throwing handkerchief, accused pressed her breasts.

Consequently, such manner of cross shows that there is no serious

challenge to the occurrence of outraging modesty. Omission is

brought to the extent of incident dated 19.09.2014 during which

accused while gagging her mouth, had seen three to four students

coming in her direction and accused ran away from the spot. She is

unable to assign reason for such details not being reflected in her

statement before learned Magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC. Rest

is all denial.



10.    Therefore, on analyzing above evidence of victim, in the

considered opinion of this Court, previous to 22.09.2014, accused had

intercepted victim when she was proceeding to school and on

22.09.2014 also he had pulled her veil and had pressed her breasts.

To this extent, her testimony has remained intact.
                                                     CriAppeal-136-2016
                                  -7-




11.   As regards to the submission that there is variance in testimony

before the court and statement under Section 164 CrPC also, this

Court does not find there to be any variance as the act of accused

pressing breasts by pulling dupatta is even reported before learned

Magistrate. So far as non-referral of victim for medical examination is

concerned, when the victim in cross has admitted that she had not

suffered any scratches or abrasion, there was no question of referring

her to medical examination to ascertain injuries on her person. Here,

there are allegations of outraging modesty by pressing breasts and as

rightly submitted by learned APP, there being no penetrative sexual

assault, investigating machinery did not find it necessary to refer her

for medical examination and as such, non-referral for medial

examination is indeed not fatal for prosecution.



12.   Here, apart from testimony of victim, which indeed is inspiring

confidence for reasons stated above, there is testimony of PW1 sister

of victim and she has also stated that, on 19.09.2014 her sister was

crying and she did not attend school and when was asked bout the

reason, witness claims to have heard from victim that accused used to

intercept her while on way to school and threatened her. That

incident was reported to father and her father and mother had visited
                                                      CriAppeal-136-2016
                                  -8-

house of accused and warned accused. She has also deposed about

hearing the occurrence dated 22.09.2014 from the victim that after

her grandmother left her midway and returned, that time accused

pulled her dupatta and outraged her modesty. Nothing damaging is

brought in her cross so as to disbelieve her testimony.



13.    Likewise, there is evidence of father as well as grandmother

who are examined as PW4 and PW5 and they both corroborate

victim’s testimony regarding occurrence dated 22.09.2014 and

previous occurrences.



14.    Therefore, there is convincing evidence on the point of accused

indulging in the act of blocking way of the victim, issuing threats and

finally on 22.09.2014 outraging her modesty. There is no reason to

doubt the evidence to that extent. Even victim’s evidence inspires

confidence and seems to be natural evidence. No defence whatsoever

has been raised by accused except stating that victim herself did not

want to take education at Latur and therefore she falsely implicated

him.



15.    Perused the judgment under challenge. Learned trial court has

rightly appreciated the evidence and taken a possible view that could
                                                       CriAppeal-136-2016
                                   -9-

emerge on appreciation of entire evidence. There is no infirmity or

perversity so as to interfere. Hence, the following order :


                                ORDER

                   The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

Later on :

16.   On pronouncement of this Judgment, learned counsel for the

appellant prays for eight weeks time to surrender so as to enable him

to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court.



17.   Considering the above request, four weeks time is granted to

the appellant to surrender.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]




vre