X.Y.Z.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

            Digitally signed            11 PT(901) JUDGMENT APEAL-147.26(2).DOCX
            by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT   GOPAL
GOPAL       CHANDAN
CHANDAN     Date:                                                                  lgc
            2026.08.28
            16:42:07 +0530


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.147 OF 2026


                XYZ                                             ]
                Age : 43 years, Occu : Business,                ]
                R/at : Jainyal, Taluka Kagal,                   ]
                District Kolhapur                               ]… Appellant.

                         Versus.

                1]       State of Maharashtra                   ]
                         Through Karveer Police Station,        ]
                         Kolhapur.                              ]
                                                                ]
                2]       Shubham Ananda Redekar                 ]
                         Age : 36 years, Occu : Labour,         ]
                                                                ]
                3]       Sujata Shubham Redekar                 ]
                         Age : 36 years, Occu : Housewife       ]
                                                                ]
                4]       Sudha Sagar Jadhav                     ]
                         Age : 41 years, Occu : Nil,            ]
                                                                ]
                         All are R/at : Superbhat Colony        ]… Respondents
                         Apatenagar, Kolhapur.                  ] (Original Accused)


                                            -----
                Mr. Dheeraj Patil for the Appellant.
                Ms. Shubhangi N Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent – State.
                                           -------


                                           CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

                                            DATED :        25 AUGUST 2026


                                                       1
                     11 PT(901) JUDGMENT APEAL-147.26(2).DOCX


ORAL JUDGMENT :-



1.    Heard, Mr. Dheeraj Patil, learned Advocate for the Appellant
and Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent
– State.

2.    By this Appeal filed under Section 419 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS 2023”), the Appellant
(victim) is before this Court, assailing the judgment and order
(“impugned judgment”) dated 21st April 2026, passed by the
Special Judge, Kolhapur (“Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 243 of
2020, by which Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been acquitted of
offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 452, 504, 506 r/w 34
of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”).

3.    In brief, the prosecution case is that the victim, aged about
16 years, was returning from her aunt’s (Vishakha – PW6) house
sometime between 15 June 2020 and 20 June 2020, when Accused
No.1 (Shubham) allegedly called her, grabbed her hand and
attempted to pull her into his friend’s house, where she noticed
liquor bottles and a glass. The victim freed herself and ran away,
after which Accused No.1 threatened her not to disclose the
incident. Thereafter, on 23 October 2020, Accused Nos. 2 and 3
(Sujata and Sudha, the wife and relative of Accused No.1
respectively) came to the victim’s house, abused her family
members and threatened to defame the victim. Following this, the
victim disclosed the earlier incident to her parents. The victim’s
mother lodged the report at Karveer Police Station on 15 October



                                 2
                      11 PT(901) JUDGMENT APEAL-147.26(2).DOCX


2020, leading to registration of FIR No. 1468 of 2020 at Karveer
Police Station, Kolhapur.

4.    Upon investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the same was
numbered as Special Case No.243 of 2020 and placed before the
Trial Court for disposal. The prosecution examined seven (7)
witnesses Special Case No.243 of 2020.

5.    The Trial Court framed 4 points for determination. After
scrutinizing the evidence on record and after hearing the parties,
the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (Accused).

6.    Mr. Dheeraj Patil, learned Advocate for the Appellant, in his
arguments has challenged the impugned judgment on two
grounds: First, that the Trial Court failed to consider that the
victim was 16 years of age on the date of the incident; and second,
that the holding of the victim's hand itself made out a case under
Section 354(A) of the BNSS, 2023. He therefore submits that the
impugned judgment needs to be quashed and the Respondent Nos.
2 to 4 (Accused) be convicted.

7.    Ms. Shubhangi Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent –
State, submits that the Trial Court has assessed the material on
record and after doing so, has arrived at a categorical finding that
no case was made out against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. She
submits that the impugned judgment does not require any
interference. In all fairness, she submits that the prosecution had
applied to the Law and Judiciary Department, Government of
Maharashtra, for an opinion on whether the impugned judgment
would be a fit case for filing an Appeal before this Court. She


                                 3
                      11 PT(901) JUDGMENT APEAL-147.26(2).DOCX


tenders a photostat copy of the correspondence dated 17 th July
2026, wherein the Law and Judiciary Department, Government of
Maharashtra, informed the Public Prosecutor, Kolhapur, that the
Government does not consider this to be a fit case for filing an
Appeal, same is taken on record and marked with “X” for
identification.

8.    Perused the records with the assistance of the learned
Advocates.

9.    While addressing the point for determination No.1, the Trial
Court, in paragraph No.22 of the impugned judgment, upon
referring to the testimonies of the victim's mother and father, who
were examined as P.W. No.1 and P.W. No.2, recorded a finding that
the victim was born on 23 rd May 2004, as per the birth certificate
of the victim (Exhibit-6). Thus, the Trial Court has considered the
victim to be 16 years of age on the date of the alleged incident. In
such circumstances, the contention of Mr. Dheeraj Patil, the
learned Advocate for the Appellant, that the Trial Court has not
considered the victim’s age as 16 years is liable to be rejected.

10.   Apart from contending that the holding of the victim's hand
itself made out a case under Section 354(A) of the BNSS, 2023,
Mr. Dheeraj Patil, learned Advocate for the Appellant, failed to
point out any material in the record to establish the said
allegations pertaining to the holding of the hand by Respondent
No.1. The Trial Court observed that the incident alleged by the
victim, namely Respondent No.1 holding her hand, was three days
prior to lodging the complaint. The Trial Court further observed
that no reason was assigned for the delay in lodging the complaint
and that there was no material to prove the allegations made by

                                   4
                         11 PT(901) JUDGMENT APEAL-147.26(2).DOCX


the victim. In paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment, the Trial
Court, taking note of the cross-examination of the mother (PW-1),
recorded that the possibility of the alleged incident narrated by the
victim appears to be remote. Similarly, the testimonies of the father
(PW-2), sister-in-law Snehal (PW-4) and aunt Vishakha (PW-6) do
not assist the case of the victim (PW-5). The findings of the Trial
Court in the impugned judgment are comprehensive and take into
account all evidence, oral and documentary.

11.   It is trite law that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and
the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused
should be adopted. A useful reference is the pronouncement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case(s) of Bhagwan Singh and
others Vs. State of M. P.1, Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka2, Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 3 and Mallappa v.
State of Karnataka4.

12.   Considering the material on record, as well as the well-
reasoned impugned judgment of the Trial Court, I do not find any
case for interference in this Appeal.

13.   In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2026 is
dismissed.

14.   No order as to costs.




                                           (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
1
      (2002) 4 SCC 85
2
      2026 SCC OnLine SC 89
3
      (2024) 8 SCC 149
4
      (2024) 3 SCC 544



                                   5