SAGAR RAJU RATHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                   1 / 15    [email protected]

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.209 OF 2023
                                                      WITH
                                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3547 OF 2022
                                                       IN
                                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.209 OF 2023

                      Sagar Raju Rathi                               .... Appellant

                              versus

                      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                .... Respondents
                                                   …....

                      •     Mr. Manan K. Shah a/w Ms. Farhana Shah, appointed Advocate
                            for Appellant.
                      •     Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for the State/Respondent.
                      •     Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, appointed Advocate for Respondent
                            No.2.

                                         CORAM     : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                     RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
                                         DATE      : 24th AUGUST, 2026

                      JUDGMENT : (PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)


                      1.           The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order

                           dated 23/03/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

                           Nashik, in Session Case No.360 of 2013. The Appellant was the
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
                           original accused No.1. His wife was the original accused No.2.
Digitally signed by
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
Date: 2026.08.28
12:14:36 +0530
                           She was also convicted by the trial court. However, she was

          Nesarikar
                              2 / 15     [email protected]

     acquitted by a Single Judge Bench of this Court in a separate

     Appeal filed by her.



2.            The Appellant was convicted for commission of the

     offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children

     from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), he was sentenced to

     suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.

     10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant was

     directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.



3.            The Appellant was acquitted from the charges of

     commission of the offence punishable under Section 10 of

     POCSO. The original accused No.2 was convicted and sentenced

     under Section 17 of POCSO, but she was subsequently acquitted

     as mentioned earlier.



4.            Heard Mr. Manan K. Shah, learned counsel for the

     Appellant, Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

     Respondent No.2 and Ms. Gauri S. Rao, learned APP for the

     State.
                              3 / 15     [email protected]




5.            The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows. The FIR

     was lodged by one Sunanda Pawar, who was a neighbour of the

     victim and her family. The victim in this case was a 6 year old

     child. The Appellant was her stepfather. It is the case of the

     prosecution that she was subjected to sexual assault on various

     occasions. The victim was badly physically assaulted by the

     Appellant. When the victim visited the house of P.W.2, she

     observed the injuries on her. She inquired with the victim's

     mother, i.e., the original accused No.2, but she did not give

     proper answers. She refused to lodge a complaint against her

     own husband, i.e., against the Appellant. Therefore, P.W.2

     approached the police on 14/10/2013 and lodged her FIR

     bearing CR No.3157 of 2013 at Sarkarwada Police Station,

     Nashik. The Appellant was arrested on the same day. He was

     then taken into custody. The investigation was carried out.

     Various Panchanamas were conducted. The victim was sent for

     medical examination. After completion of the investigation, the

     charge-sheet was filed. The case was tried before the learned

     Trial Judge as mentioned earlier.
                               4 / 15    [email protected]




6.            During the trial, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses,

     including the victim, the first informant, the Panchas, the

     Medical Officer, and the Investigating Officer. The defence of the

     Appellant was that, on one occasion, the first informant had

     thrown his son in front of a vehicle and therefore, there was a

     quarrel between the Appellant and the informant. This was one

     reason for their enmity. According to him, he had given

     Rs.25,000/- to the first informant. Instead of repaying the loan,

     she wanted to avoid it, and hence, a false case was lodged

     against him.



7.            The learned trial Judge did not believe the defence of

     the Appellant. She relied on the evidence of the victim, the first

     informant, and, in particular, on the evidence of the Medical

     Officer. Based on that, she convicted and sentenced the

     Appellant as mentioned earlier.



8.            The evidence of the victim in this case is very

     important. She was examined as P.W.1. She was 6 years of age at
                          5 / 15    [email protected]

the time of the incident in the year 2013, and her evidence was

recorded on 22/08/2014. There was no dispute about her age.

She deposed that the Appellant was her stepfather. He was not

doing any work. Her mother was working as a maid servant. The

first informant’s son was her friend. She narrated the incident by

stating that she was assaulted by the Appellant. He poured chilly

powder in her private parts. She was assaulted by the Appellant

by using a wire attached to the mobile phone charger. He used

to tie her hands with that charger wire. He used to put her face

and head in the toilet block. She further deposed that she

narrated that incident to the police. She had also narrated the

incident to the first informant. She further deposed that she was

sent to the hospital for examination.



         In the cross-examination, she deposed that she had met

the first informant in the Court at the time of deposition. She

resided with the first informant for 7 to 8 months. She used to

like the house of the first informant. She admitted that the first

informant used to give her sweets and gifts. She was specifically

asked whether she disliked her parents as they used to ask her to
                               6 / 15     [email protected]

     study. She specifically denied it by stating that she disliked them

     as they used to beat her. Her mother used to bring tiffin from

     outside. She was not cooking food in the house. She admitted

     that, on one occasion, because the informant pushed her, she

     had fallen down and had sustained an injury on her knee, and

     there was a quarrel between the Appellant and the informant.

     She admitted that the Appellant asked her to come back to their

     house. But she denied that the first informant was not willing to

     take her back. The toilet was near the room of the Appellant.

     She denied that the Appellant was working as a watchman at

     the Bunglow of one Palve.



9.            The first informant used to ask her to stay with her. But

     she denied that the first informant was telling her not to stay

     with her parents. She admitted that the first informant used to

     tell her that if she went back to her house, the Appellant would

     beat her. She denied the suggestion that the Appellant had not

     assaulted her and had not put chilly powder in her private parts,

     and that she was stating this as per the instructions of the first

     informant. She used to call the first informant as Mummy. She
                            7 / 15    [email protected]

  used to listen to the first informant. She admitted that the first

  informant accompanied her to the police station as well as to the

  hospital. She again denied that she was deposing at the instance

  of the first informant. She correctly answered that the chilly

  powder was red in colour. The accused No.2 used to attend her

  work in the morning and used to return in the afternoon. She

  denied that there used to be frequent quarrels between the first

  informant and the accused.



10.        The prosecution witness No.2 was the first informant.

  She deposed that the victim used to come to her house to play

  with her children. She was at her house for 6 to 7 months as the

  accused No.2 was pregnant. After the delivery, the accused No.2

  took the victim back. But after 9 to 10 months, again, the

  accused No.2 brought her back.



11.        On 13/10/2013, the accused No.2 came to her house

  with the victim on the occasion of Dussehra. At that time, she

  saw injuries on her person, near her eyes. The accused No.2 told

  P.W.2 that the victim had fallen on a water tap and had sustained
                          8 / 15     [email protected]

injuries. When the accused No.2 left the victim at her house, she

inquired with the victim, who told her that she was assaulted by

the Appellant. P.W.2 told the accused No.2 to lodge a police

complaint, but she did not lodge any complaint. On the next day,

when P.W.2 was giving bath to the victim, she noticed injuries on

the victim's private parts. The victim disclosed that her father

used to go to put chilly powder in the private parts and used to

insert some object in her private parts. She also told her that the

accused used to beat her with a charger wire. The accused No.2

still did not want to lodge the FIR. Therefore, P.W.2 approached

the police station and lodged the FIR, which is brought on

record at Ex.25. The victim was referred to Civil Hospital for

medical examination. P.W.2 showed the spot of the incident to

the police.



         In the cross-examination she denied the suggestion

that since the victim staying with her she had attachment for the

victim. She did not lodge the FIR on 13/10/2013 after observing

the injuries on her person, but lodged a report on 15/10/2013.

Both the accused were residing in the outhouse of one Palve.
                           9 / 15     [email protected]

  The Appellant was working as a watchman. Dr. Palve and his

  wife were an old couple, and they were residing in that

  Bungalow. She stated that her husband was an agriculturist. She

  denied the suggestion that she had taken Rs.25,000/- from the

  Appellant and that she was not returning the money on the

  ground that she had incurred expenses towards maintenance of

  the victim and that, therefore, she had lodged a false FIR. Dr.

  Palve’s house was situated in a thickly populated area.



12.        P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the Panchas. P.W.3, Yamuna Dagale,

  was a Pancha when the victim's clothes were produced. P.W.4

  Shivaji Ahire was a Pancha for the spot Panchanama, which is

  produced on record at Ex.35. At the time of conducting the spot

  Panchanama, the charger and the wire were seized. They were

  produced before the Court.



13.        P.W.5, Dr. Pramod Chaudhari, was an important

  witness. He had examined the victim. He deposed that the

  victim was initially examined in the casualty by CMO. The victim

  was examined on 15/10/2013. She was examined by various
                          10 / 15    [email protected]

experts. She had multiple injuries on her body. There were

bilateral periorbital swelling with left pinna swelling with

multiple bruises and abrasions on thighs and back. On local

genital examination conducted by P.W.5, he found that her local

genital parts had swollen bruises, tender swollen bruises, tender

fresh tear present swollen bleeding present, with fresh tear of

Fourchette with bleeding with fresh tear of hymen at 5, 6, 7

O'Clock position. There was Annular type of hymen. He deposed

that such type of hymen is seen in assault like sexual assault or if

any object is inserted forcefully in the private part. There was

fresh tear of perineum seen, bleeding present. The CMO

collected samples of blood, nail scrubbing, vaginal swabs and

vulvul swabs. On the basis of the examination, P.W.5 opined that

the findings mentioned in the certificate are consistent with

recent sexual intercourse/assault. The original treatment papers

were produced on record. The CMO had noted multiple reddish

brownish scabbed linear abrasion, six in number, ranging from 7

cm to 0.3 cm. to 4 cm x 0.2 cm, present over both buttocks

around anus placed horizontally. CMO had also noticed

multiple, contusions bluish black size ranging 2.5 x 1 cm to 1 cm
                           11 / 15    [email protected]

  x 1 cm present over inner aspect and back of both the thighs.

  Multiple reddish brownish scabbed abrasions, curvilinear size

  ranging 1.8 cm x 0.3 cm to 1 cm x 0.2 cm were present over

  both buttocks and inner aspect of thighs. The medical

  certificates were produced on record at Ex.39 and 40.



           The cross-examination did not reveal anything in

  favour of the accused.



14.        P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer, API Anuja Rajguru.

  She deposed about recording of the FIR and sending the victim

  for medical examination. She herself had observed the weil

  marks on the buttocks and burn injuries on the buttocks. She

  visited the spot of the incident and conducted the Panchanama.

  She deposed about the investigation carried out, various

  Panchanamas, spot Panchanama, articles forwarded for chemical

  analysis. She identified the accused before the Court.



           In the cross-examination, she admitted that the victim

  had stayed with the complainant for 6 to 7 months prior to the
                           12 / 15     [email protected]

  incident. She denied that she was deposing falsely. She had not

  carried out any investigation regarding the transaction between

  the first informant and accused.



           This, in short, is the evidence led by the prosecution.



15.        Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the

  prosecution has not proved any intention on the part of the

  accused to commit this offence. There was no motive. The

  defence was not taken into consideration by the Trial Court.

  There was a monetary transaction and there was quarrel on one

  occasion. Both these aspects are ignored by the learned Trial

  Judge. He submitted that the Appellant has not committed any

  offence. He further submitted that if the conviction has to be

  upheld sentence be reduced because he is in custody

  continuously since the year 2013 without any parole or furlough

  leave.



16.        The learned APP, as well as the learned counsel for the

  Respondent No.2, supported the impugned Judgment. They
                           13 / 15    [email protected]

  submitted that the evidence of the victim, the first informant,

  and the medical evidence sufficiently corroborate each other,

  and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable

  doubt.



17.        We have considered these submissions. The most

  significant evidence in this case is in the form of depositions of

  P.W.1, 2 and 5. The victim had narrated the incident in sufficient

  detail. Her evidence was supported on all aspects by the

  evidence of P.W.5. The victim was a 6 year old helpless girl

  residing with the Appellant. All these injuries mentioned by

  P.W.5 are quite serious. They could neither be self-inflicted

  injuries nor could they be a result of an accident. Both the

  accused have not explained those injuries, though the victim was

  residing with them.



18.        The manner of sexual assault and physical assault was

  brutal and cruel. The deposition of P.W.1 does not suffer from

  any infirmity. She is clearly a truthful witness. She, on her own,

  did not complain to anyone else because her own mother was
                           14 / 15     [email protected]

  not supporting her. It is only when that the first informant

  noticed those injuries, that the offence came to be registered.



19.        The first informant herself did not have any motive to

  implicate the accused falsely. Though the Appellant claims to

  have given Rs.25,000/- to the first informant, there is no

  material to support his contention. The earlier quarrel was not

  to the extent to prompt the P.W.2 to lodge a false FIR against the

  Appellant. More importantly, the informant's statement was

  supported by the medical examination. She had narrated

  sufficient details in her FIR. There is immediate corroboration of

  her story in the form of medical evidence. We do not find any

  infirmity in her evidence.



20.        The evidence of P.W.5, i.e., the Medical Officer, shows

  the suffering of the victim. The injuries are described in

  sufficient details. Her version is fully supported by the medical

  evidence. The offence is heinous and cruel.



21.        Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion
                           15 / 15   [email protected]

  that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable

  doubt.



22.        We seriously considered the learned counsel's prayer

  for reduction of sentence. However, looking at the nature of

  injuries suffered by the victim and the manner in which she was

  put in a helpless condition, there is no scope for reducing the

  sentence imposed in this case. We are not inclined to reduce the

  sentence of the Appellant.



23.        We do not find any merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is

  dismissed.



24.        With dismissal of the Appeal, the connected application

  is also disposed of.




(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)         (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)