NANDU MOHAN KARDILEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:37470


                                                                         CriAppeal-285-2022
                                                    -1-

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2022

                 Nandu s/o Mohan Kardile,
                 Age 44 years, Occupation Agriculture,
                 R/o Kada, Taluka Ashti,
                 District Beed.                                       … Appellant
                                                                      [Orig. Accused]
                         Versus

                 1.      The State of Maharashtra,
                         Through : The Police Station Officer,
                         Ashti, Taluka Ashti, District Beed.

                 2.      X. Y. Z.                                     … Respondents
                                                    …..
                      Ms. Mangal R. Chavan, Advocate for the Appellant (Appointed).
                              Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                      Ms. Rashmi Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed)
                                                    .....

                                           CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                           Reserved on           : 19.08.2026
                                           Pronounced on         : 20.08.2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.      In the instant appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and

                 order dated 18.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Beed in

                 Special (POCSO) Case No. 41 of 2018, by which appellant stood

                 convicted for offence under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of

                 Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376(2)(f)(i)(n)

                 of IPC.
                                                    CriAppeal-285-2022
                                 -2-

2.    This is one of the most unfortunate cases, wherein biological

father has committed above offence on his own daughter since she

was studying in 3rd standard. She was repeatedly ravished till she was

admitted in a school in Pune where she disclosed about it to one case

worker, who in turn informed Child Welfare Committee (CWC) at

whose instance PW2 set law into motion resulting into registration of

“zero” crime and it was further transferred to Beed where offence was

registered for above sections. After completion of investigation,

accused was chargesheeted and finally tried by Special Court, who on

appreciating the evidence, accepted the case of prosecution as proved

beyond reasonable doubt and convicted appellant. Hence, instant

appeal.



SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the Appellant :

3.    Learned counsel appointed to represent the appellant pleaded

innocence and false implication by pointing out that, there is no

convincing, cogent and reliable evidence. She attacked and criticized

the story of prosecution primarily on the ground of delayed reporting.

According to her, there is no witness. She questions the unnatural

conduct of mother, who, in spite of learning from the victim, did not

lodge report. Learned counsel submitted that there is no convincing,
                                                     CriAppeal-285-2022
                                  -3-

independent testimony and only interested witnesses are examined.

That, medical evidence is not supporting prosecution. That, medical

expert categorically stated that there were no fresh injuries and there

to be old tear and therefore, she questions the allegations of forceful

sexual rape. She pointed out that, learned trial court has not

considered and appreciated the defence evidence in its proper

perspective. According to her, to avoid repayment of borrowed

amount by uncle, there is false implication.



On behalf of the Respondent-State :

4.    Learned APP, who supported the judgment, pointed out that

accused, since his daughter victim was in 3rd standard, used to commit

sexual intercourse with her. That, victim narrated the ordeal faced by

her to the school authorities, who in turn reported it to CWC, who

took prompt action of getting complaint lodged through PW2.

Evidence of PW2 has remained unshaken. Even testimonies of both

aunts of victim are intact on the point of act of accused. He submitted

that, there is convincing evidence about minority of the victim.



5.    As regards to delay is concerned, learned APP invited attention

of the Court to the observations of trial court in para 25. He pointed

out that, mother is illiterate, rustic villager and allegations being
                                                      CriAppeal-285-2022
                                  -4-

against her own husband, out of fear of shame and defamation, mere

understanding was given to the accused. There is convincing medical

evidence and therefore, learned trial court committed no error in

returning guilt of the accused. He urges for grant of compensation to

the victim by seeking reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Ape Court

in the case of Bhanei Prasad @ Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR

OnLine 2025 1297.


On behalf of Respondent No.2-Victim :

6.    Learned counsel appointed to espouse the cause and interest of

victim, would also put up stiff resistance to the appeal. She pointed

out that, in trial court there is no challenge to the minority of the

victim and moreover, she pointed out that, accused while answering

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also admitted the age of victim, who

is his own daughter. That, coupled with it, there is birth certificate

and as such, according to her, there is overwhelming evidence on the

point of age and minority of the victim. She pointed out that, victim

withstood the grueling cross. That, she has remained steadfast on

being ravished multiple times by none other than her father since she

was in 3rd standard till she studied up to 5th standard. That, the ordeal

faced by the victim has been narrated by her in her testimony. That,

all suggestions put by defence are denied in toto by her.
                                                    CriAppeal-285-2022
                                   -5-

7.    On the point of delayed reporting, it is her submission that,

mother being illiterate and being of low IQ with simpleton nature,

there was no prompt reporting. Moreover, accused was her own

husband and therefore, there was no prompt reporting. She pointed

out that, even accused, while facing inquiry under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., has admitted that his wife was simpleton. Resultantly, in her

submission, delay is attributed to the above reasons. Lastly, she

submitted that, though defence of false implication in the backdrop of

money transaction is put forth, accused failed to probabilize his

defence and no quarrel or dispute on the point of money is brought

on record in spite of examining two witnesses. Thus, she too supports

the judgment and order of conviction and prays to dismiss the appeal

for want of merits.



STATUS OF WITNESSES

8.    In support of it case, prosecution has examined in all nine

witnesses. Their status is as under :

PW1    is the victim

PW2    is the complainant, who set law into motion vide complaint

       Exhibit 24.

PW3    is the maternal aunt of victim.

PW4    is the mother of victim.
                                                      CriAppeal-285-2022
                                   -6-

PW5    is the medical expert.

PW6 ]
and ] are the panchas to recovery of clothes and spot respectively.
PW7 ]


PW8    is the Investigating Officer.

PW9    is Doctor, who examined accused.



       Accused has also examined two defence witnesses i.e. DW1 and

DW2.



ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

9.     Re-appreciated the evidence of above witnesses. There being

charge under POCSO Act, it is first to be ascertained and determined

as to whether victim is proved to be a minor.



10.    PW1 victim gave her date of birth as 21.08.2004. Her mother

has not given age of the victim. Investigating Officer has gathered

school admission extract, but apparently it is of 3 rd standard and date

of birth in the same is noted as 21.08.2004. However, there is no

evidence in the form of birth certificate or school admission record of

the 1st standard. Be it so, as there was no serious challenged to the

age and minority of the victim in the trial court by defence, taking the
                                                     CriAppeal-285-2022
                                  -7-

date of birth narrated by victim herself into account, and also the

admission extract, though it is of 3rd standard and not of 1st standard,

she was indeed not above 18 years of age by any standards, and

therefore, was a minor.



11.     As regards to offence under the provisions of Sections 4 and 6

of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(n) of IPC is concerned,

testimony of victim is of significance. Of equal significance is the

evidence of PW2, an independent lady witness who set law into

motion. Therefore, at the outset, her evidence is required to be dealt

with.



12.     PW2 at Exhibit 20 deposed that, she works as a Superintendent

in the Girls Observation Home at Nana Peth, Pune. That, on

16.06.2018, one Smt. Pathak, who was social worker of Maharshi

Karve Stree Shikshan Sanstha, Pune, brought victim before her in

view of order of CWC, Pune. Said Pathak madam gave application

and narrated to this witness about victim to have faced sexual assault

by her father and victim was duly admitted in the Observation Home

on 16.08.2018 and since then she was residing with her. This witness

claims that she noted case history of the victim wherein she narrated

she to be resident of Kada and that, when she was studying in 3 rd
                                                     CriAppeal-285-2022
                                  -8-

standard, once while her mother was sleeping at midnight, her father

came to her bed, placed his hand on her breast, undressed her, got

himself undressed and placed his penis in her vagina and had sexual

intercourse with her. Victim reported that he did this act two to three

times a week when her mother was sleeping. She reported it to her

mother who questioned her father, but her father refused any such

occurrence taking place. Thereafter she disclosed the incidence to her

aunt when she was in 5th and 6th standard, and her aunt and other

relatives visited Kada and assaulted her father. That, during summer

vacation of April 2018, she was brought to the above school and then

Pathak madam intimated CWC, who brought victim to the office of

this Witness and therefore she lodged complaint as per the order of

CWC which she identified to be at Exhibit 24.



      Nothing adverse or damaging has been brought in the cross of

above witness.



13.   The star witness is the victim herself and she has deposed in the

capacity of PW1. At Exhibit 15, she gave her date of birth as

21.08.2004 and place of birth as Shrigonda. After giving details of her

family, she deposed that she was studying in 7 th standard in Zilla

Parishad Central Primary School, Kada. She also deposed that her
                                                    CriAppeal-285-2022
                                 -9-

mother was simpleton. According to her, while she was studying in 3 rd

standard, during summer vacation, while she slept in the house, her

father came near her, undressed her and placed his male organ in her

vagina. She deposed that it was painful and troubling for her. She

claims that she tried to give call to her mother, but he gagged her

mouth and even threatened her. On next morning when she narrated

the incident to her mother, she merely questioned her father about it,

but he denied it. Then she deposed that, because of the penetration,

she had suffered pain for three to four days and deposed that again

her father did this act with her twice-thrice in a week, i.e. when her

mother was sleeping. Then she narrated that during summer vacation

when she was in 5th standard, she went to her maternal aunt and

narrated the incident her maternal aunt, who assaulted her father.

She claims that after vacation she returned home, but again her father

started misbehaving with her and did the same thing with her. She

claims to have used phone of one Jaya and intimated to her maternal

aunt, after which her aunt, aunt’s husband, maternal uncle, mother’s

father all came to Kada and beat her father, after which accused

assured that he would not repeat it. Her uncle and aunt took her to

their house, but when she again went back to Kada, her father

repeated the incident of rape with her. Then she reported that in the

month of April-May 2018, on account of vacation, she went to her
                                                      CriAppeal-285-2022
                                  -10-

maternal uncle and aunt, who shifted her to Pune for further

education, i.e. because of the repeated incidences of rape by father.

She deposed that she was admitted in Maharshi Karve School in 8 th

Standard and there she narrated the facts to Rathod madam, who

took her to CWC, Pune and then being taken to Police Station, where

her statement was recorded which she identified to be at Exhibits 16

and 17. There is a noting in the evidence by trial court that accused

was shown on the screen of deposition center and she identified him

to be her father and there is also a note that witness started weeping

and the Court tried to solace her and provided time for rest.

Thereafter she faced cross. Relevant cross is as under :



      During cross, she denied that she resides in a joint family. She

answered that her school was 4 kms. away and she went with her

friends and came back with them. She admitted that one lady teacher

was teaching them in school, but answered that she did not narrate

the incident of sexual assault by her father, i.e. while she was

studying in 3rd standard, to either of her grandparents nor to her

friends or teacher. She answered that, she was not medically treated

nor she had been to doctor, i.e. after the first incidence. She deposed

that, her father did agricultural work as well as sold bhel in the bazar.

She denied deposing as tutored by her maternal aunt. All suggestions
                                                   CriAppeal-285-2022
                                  -11-

are flatly denied by her.



14.   PW3 is the maternal aunt of victim and she also, in para 3 of

her evidence at Exhibit 29 deposed that, when victim was studying in

3rd standard, her father sexually assaulted her under influence of

liquor and that victim initially told her mother and her mother asked

accused but he said nothing. Then she deposed that, during summer

vacation when the victim went to maternal uncle’s place, she

informed wife of maternal uncle as well as this witness about her

father sexually assaulting her, i.e. by removing clothes committing

sexual intercourse with her. That, during summer vacation of 2018

also, victim disclosed that, her father sexually harassed her and

assaulted her.



      Though this witness is cross examined, there is denial in toto

including suggestion that accused demanded money back from her

brother resulting into quarrel.



15.   PW4 mother deposed that, while her daughter was in 3rd

standard, she learnt from her daughter that her father misbehaved

with her by removing her clothes and had sexual intercourse with her.

She claims to have questioned her husband, but he refused and
                                                    CriAppeal-285-2022
                                 -12-

therefore, her daughter went and informed brother of this witness

during the summer vacation after 5 th standard, and her brother and

his wife came and assaulted her husband. That, as her husband

sexually assaulted her daughter, relatives decided to send victim to

school at Pune.



      Even in cross of above witness nothing damaging to the

prosecution has been elicited by the defence.



16.   PW5 is the medical expert who noted the history and on

physical examination, noticed multiple old healed tears, i.e. at 10

o’clock, 11 o’clock, 6 o’clock and conclusion was reached that there

was evidence of vaginal penetration with evidence of no injury on

other parts of the body.



      In cross, above medical expert has expressed probability of

minor victim sustaining injury to vagina on account of sexual assault.

Rest is all denial.



17.   PW6 and PW7 are the pachas to seizure of clothes and spot

respectively.
                                                      CriAppeal-285-2022
                                  -13-

18.   PW8 is the Investigating Officer who narrated all steps taken by

him during investigation.



19.   PW9 is the Doctor who examined accused.



20.   Though defence has adduced evidence of DW1 and DW2, case

of defence about false implication on the point of money transaction

is not even probabilized.



21.   On complete and meticulous re-appreciation of above evidence,

here, it is evident that victim is none other than the daughter of

accused, and she has been sexually ravished multiple times by her

own biological father. Here, protector has become predator. He has

apparently misused his position as a father and it is rather a profound

betrayal of familial trust. The incidences as narrated by the victim are

since when she was in 3rd standard and was a helpless child, whose

mother was reported to be a simpleton. Victim has narrated that, she

was gagged by her father while committing the above offence on her.

She has narrated that the incidences used to take place twice-thrice in

a week. No child would manufacture false story and thereby implicate

her own guardian for no reason.
                                                      CriAppeal-285-2022
                                  -14-

22.   When information to mother did not yield any fruitful result

and as sexual assault continued, victim seems to have narrated the

ordeal faced by her to her maternal aunt at Shrigonda and her uncle

and other family members also gave thrashing to him. Victim as well

as her mother have narrated that accused assured not to repeat the

said act, but he continued to indulge in the same, and it is evident

from the testimony of the victim. Finally, only when victim was

rightly thought to be shifted and separated from the company of

accused and admitted in a school at Pune, there victim seems to have

disclosed the assault on her to a case worker, who in turn seems to

have approached CWC, who after verifying and ascertaining the story

of victim, has directed PW2 to lodge report. It is in that backdrop, the

occurrence has come to light.


23.   Medical evidence, as discussed above, substantiates multiple

forceful sexual acts on the victim who is proved to be a minor.

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, prosecution indeed

has succeeded in establishing the charges. Accused failed to

probabilize his defence.


24.   As regards to delayed report is concerned, there are reasons

and circumstances resulting into delayed action for the reasons stated

above, i.e. only when the victim was at Pune, and free from the fear
                                                       CriAppeal-285-2022
                                  -15-

and clutches of her father, she seems to have mustered courage to

report the events with her to PW2, who has set law into motion. In

cross of none of the witnesses, defence could shake their testimony,

more particularly of victim, as she is found to have denied all

suggestions put to her and has rather remained steadfast on the count

of sexual assault on her which she reported in her chief.



25.   Perused the judgment. This Court has noticed that trial court

has considered and appreciated the evidence of each of the witnesses

in entirety, including cross-examination, and by assigning sound

reasons, has accepted the case of prosecution as proved beyond

reasonable doubt. No perversity or patent illegality is brought to the

notice of this Court so as to interfere. Hence, following order :


                                ORDER

I.    The Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.


II.   Fees of learned counsel appointed to represent the appellant as
well as the learned counsel appointed to espouse the cause of the
respondent victim, which is to be paid by the High Court Legal
Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, is quantified at Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre