PAWAN SUBHASH SONAWANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:44697


                                                                      CriAppeal-393-2016
                                                   -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.393 OF 2016

                 Pawan Subhash Sonawane
                 Age: 30 years, Occu.: Agri.,
                 R/o. Kusumba, Tq. Jalgaon,
                 District Jalgaon.                                       .. Appellant

                       Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra                                .. Respondent

                                                …
                 Mr. Yogesh H. Jadhav, Advocate h/f Mr. Girish Nagori, Advocate for
                 the appellant.
                 Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for the respondent/State.
                                                   ...

                                                CORAM :      ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                Reserved on : 29.09.2026
                                                Pronounced on : 30.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :-

                 1.    The appellant-convict takes exception to the judgment and

                 order of conviction dated 03.06.2016 passed by the learned Special

                 Judge, Jalgaon, in Special Case No.15 of 2013, for the offence

                 punishable under Section 354-A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code [IPC].


                 2.    In short, the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that

                 PW2, the mother of PW1 (victim), was admitted to the Civil Hospital,

                 Jalgaon, and was undergoing treatment. PW1, who was taking care of

                 her mother, had, after the meals, taken the utensils for washing to the
                                                      CriAppeal-393-2016
                                  -2-

tap situated inside the ward itself. At that time, accused came from

rear side of her, pressed her breast and outraged her modesty. Her

shouts and cries attracted the attention of the police, whereupon she

accompanied them to the police station and lodged a report, resulting

in the registration of the crime. The crime was thereafter investigated

and, upon completion of investigation, accused was charge-sheeted

and tried in the aforesaid Special Case. Ultimately, he came to be

convicted by the judgment and order dated 03.06.2016. Hence, the

present appeal.


3.    Learned Counsel for the appellant apprise this Court about the

story of prosecution in trial Court. After taking this Court through the

length and breadth of the testimonies of complainant, her mother and

other witnesses, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that

there is no independent witness corroborating the testimony of

complainant. According to him, PW2 mother has hearsay information.

He pointed out that other patients admitted in the ward are not

examined. That, moreover victim was not referred to medical and

therefore, allegations are not proved. According to him, learned trial

Court failed to appreciate the defence set up by the accused and

directly accepted the case of prosecution, which was without

corroboration. Learned Counsel for the appellant took this Court
                                                    CriAppeal-393-2016
                                 -3-

through the entire judgment and order and would submit that no

sound reasons are assigned while convicting the appellant and

therefore, he prays to interfere by setting aside the impugned

judgment.



4.    Learned APP would support the judgment and order of

conviction by submitting that the same is based on a complete

appreciation of evidence and upon finding testimony of complainant

worthy of credence. He prays for dismissal of the appeal for want of

merits.



5.    Heard. Perused the record. The prosecution case appears to rest

on the evidence of as many as six witnesses. Though the accused was

charge-sheeted for offences under the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act (for short “POCSO Act”), the learned Trial Court

having acquitted him of the charge under Section 8 of the POCSO Act,

and there being no appeal by the State, this Court is only called upon

to ascertain whether the charge under Section 354-A(1)(i) of the IPC

has been cogently brought home. Here, as stated above, though six

witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, the crucial

evidence is that of the victim, her mother and a ward nurse.
                                                       CriAppeal-393-2016
                                     -4-

6.    PW1 Victim, in her testimony at Exhibit-15, deposed that as her

mother had health issues, she was admitted in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon

and therefore. She used to stay with her mother in the hospital in

General Ward No.12. She testified that on 13.03.2013, at around 8.00

p.m., after the meals, when she went to the basin to clean the

utensils, the accused came from behind and, inserting his hands

beneath her shoulders, pressed her breasts, whereupon she shouted.

Her mother and the nurse reached there. The police also reached

there, thereafter, she lodged the report Exhibit-16.


.     Minor omissions were brought on record during her cross-

examination to the extent that the police had accompanied her from

the hospital to the police station and regarding her mother being

admitted to the general ward. She answered that when the accused

pressed her breast, she had shouted. She further answered that when

the accused put his hands beneath her shoulders, she shouted and,

therefore, her mother came and several persons gathered. She

answered that when the accused put his hands beneath her shoulders,

she did not resist. Rest is all denial.


7.    The above is the testimony of the victim, which apparently

appears to be natural. On the relevant day, she was taking care of her

mother in the hospital and, after taking dinner, when she went to
                                                    CriAppeal-393-2016
                                  -5-

wash the utensils, the above act was committed by the accused. The

manner of cross-examination show that there is no serious challenge

to the occurrence and even the occurrence is got confirmed through

her cross-examination.


8.    PW-2, the mother of the victim, in her evidence at Exhibit-18,

also testified that her daughter was staying with her in Ward No.12 of

the hospital to take care of her and that, on 13.03.2013, after taking

meals, her daughter went to wash the utensils at the tap in the ward.

Upon hearing her daughter's shouts, she rushed there, whereupon her

daughter informed her that the accused had pressed her breast.


.     Nothing adverse has been brought in her cross-examination.


9.    Likewise, PW3 independent witness and a nurse, in her

evidence at Exhibit-20, deposed that patient, namely, Kalpanabai was

also admitted in the same ward along with Meenabai, who was being

taken care by her daughter (victim). Accused was said to be brother

of said Kalpanabai and she in her evidence deposed that, at around

8.30 p.m., she learnt from PW2 that modesty of her daughter was

outraged by accused and, therefore, she made phone call to the

security, who in turn, informed the police.
                                                   CriAppeal-393-2016
                                 -6-

10.   Therefore, these witnesses, more particularly, PW2 and PW3

seems to be res gestae witnesses, to whom victim has immediately

informed after she was victimized and her modesty was outraged.

Evidence of complainant, as stated above, appears to be natural and

therefore, worthy of credence and reliance.


11.   Submissions made before this Court that there is no

corroboration to the victim's testimony has no force. When testimony

of victim inspires confidence, her sole testimony can definitely be

relied and acted upon. Here also, testimony of victim inspires

confidence. There is nothing brought in her cross-examination to

disbelieve her or to doubt her version. As regards to non examination

of independent witnesses, here, there is testimony of PW3, a nurse,

who was also present around and had reached and heard the story

from informant's mother, who too was a patient. In fact, presence of

accused is not rendered doubtful and this witness PW3 has deposed

that accused was brother of a lady patient, namely, Kalpanabai and he

seems to have come there as a caretaker. In view of the nature of

allegations which are proved, there was no need for referring victim

to the medical examination, as no injury was suffered by her.

Therefore, none of the grounds raised by learned Counsel for the

appellant has made out.
                                                       CriAppeal-393-2016
                                  -7-

12.   Perused the judgment under challenge. The same seems to be

in consonance with the evidence on record. The view taken by the

learned trial Court is the only possible view that could emerge with

such quality of evidence on record. There being no merits in the

appeal, it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order :-


                                ORDER


            .      The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.



                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



scm