Bombay High Court
PARSHURAM KAUTIKRAO PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The appellate court held that the victim's testimony was reliable, corroborated, and the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thereby dismissing the appeal.
Summary
The appellant was convicted under IPC Section 354A(2) and the POCSO Act for allegedly molesting an 11‑year‑old girl on a school bus. He challenged the conviction on grounds of a 19‑hour delay in filing the FIR, alleged inconsistencies in the victim's statements, and the non‑examination of a girl witness. The trial court found the victim's testimony reliable and corroborated by a boy passenger and his mother, and held that the delay in reporting did not vitiate the case. The appellate court affirmed that the prosecution had satisfied the burden of proof, that the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was not rebutted, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was directed to serve any remaining sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 19 hours in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case
- Whether inconsistencies in the victim's statements undermine her credibility
- Whether the failure to examine a girl witness present in the bus prejudices the trial
- Whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt under the POCSO Act, including the presumption of guilt under Section 29
- Whether the conviction under IPC Section 354A(2) and POCSO Act Section 7 is sustainable
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 134
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 354A(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 29, 2(d), 7, 8
Subjects
- sexual assault
- child sexual abuse
- POCSO Act
- delay in FIR
- victim testimony
- presumption of guilt
- conviction upheld
Judgment
CRAPEAL-843-2017-DRAFT.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 843 OF 2017
Parshuram Kautikrao Pawar & Anr. …Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Mr Ajay Talreja, Appointed Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr Ashok S. Gawai, APP, for Respondent No. 1-State.
Mr Sushan Mhatre, Appointed Advocate, for Respondent No. 2.
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
Digitally signed
by SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
DATE: 17TH FEBRUARY 2026.
Date: 2026.02.25
11:36:11 +0530 PC:-
1. The Appellant/convict takes exception to the Judgment and
order dated 7th September 2017 passed in POCSO Special Case
No. 146 of 2014 whereby he was convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for
short “IPC”) and for the offence under Section 7 punishable under
Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (for short “POCSO Act”) and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of three years with fine and default sentence.
2. It is a case of the prosecution that victim, who was studying
in 5th standard in year 2014 was going to school by school bus
with her friends. The accused was one of the conductors/cleaners
Page 1 of 9
th
17 February 2026
CRAPEAL-843-2017-DRAFT.DOC
deputed on the said school bus. On 6 th February 2014, while
victim along with her friends was returning to home in the school
bus, she found that accused had consumed liquor. She claims that
accused pulled her hair and moved his hand over her chest, which
was also noticed by her friends. After having noticed the same
victim got down from the bus before her regular stop and
informed the said incident to the mother of her friend. Thereafter,
mother of the victim was communicated the incident by victim as
well as mother of her friend.. On the next day, i.e., on 7 th February
2014, father of victim along with victim went to the school and
met Principal of the school. They were advised to file a complaint
to the police. Accordingly, First Information Report (‘FIR’ for short)
came to be lodged with Mulund Police Station. Crime was register
vide CR No. 83 of 2014. Investigation in the said crime was
conducted by a woman police officer. She recorded statements of
victim and other witnesses. The victim was sent for medical
examination. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet came to
be filed before the competent Court.
3. Charge was framed against the accused vide Exh. 6. Since
accused abjured the charge, the prosecution examined eight
witnesses and also relied upon documentary evidence.
Incriminating circumstances were put the accused in his statement
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short “Cr.P.C.”). Learned trial Court found evidence led by the
prosecution to be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused
Page 2 of 9
th
17 February 2026
CRAPEAL-843-2017-DRAFT.DOC
beyond reasonable doubt and hence, recorded conviction against
him by impugned Judgment and Order.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is 19
hours delay in lodging of the FIR and, therefore, it creates doubt
genuineness thereof. It is his further contention that there are
inconsistencies in the statement of victim as compared to her
earlier statement, so also, the statement/evidence of the informant
as well as PW-3, who is mother of victim’s friend. According to
him, the prosecution has not examined on the alleged eye
witnesses of the incident and non examination of female friend of
the victim makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. It is
submitted that she was the best witness but was withheld by the
prosecution without any explanation. He drew attention of the
Court to the cross-examination of victim wherein she admits that
whenever the children were playing and shouting in the bus, the
bus cleaner used to scold us and that they used to inform about
the same to their parents. This, according to him, is reason for
lodging report and the possibility of the accused/Appellant be
falsely implicated on this count is not ruled out. On these
amongst other submission he seeks acquittal of the accused.
5. Learned APP and learned Counsel for respondent No.2-
victim supported impugned Judgment and Order. It is their
contention that there is no dispute made by the defence with
regard to the age of the victim to be below 18 years and the
provisions of POCSO Act rightly invoked in this case. They took
Page 3 of 9
th
17 February 2026
CRAPEAL-843-2017-DRAFT.DOC
this Court through the evidence recorded before the trial Court to
submit that the evidence of victim is consistent to her previous
statement so also, statement of the witness, i.e., the boy who was
present at the time of occurrence of the incident. It is pointed out
that the victim got down at the earlier stop than to her regular
stop and disclosed occurrence of the incident immediately to PW-
3. Evidence of PW-3, and this, according to them, supports the
version of victim in regard to occurrence of incident. It is argued
that it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine all
witnesses to the incident and examination of the boy, who also
witnessed the said incident, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused. Lastly, it is contended that there is no delay in lodging of
the FIR nor any reason is brought on record by the defence for
false implication of the Appellant/accused in this crime.
6. The law on the point of appreciation of evidence of the
victim of a sexual assault is fairly settled to say that if the evidence
of the victim is wholly reliable and free from doubt, it can become
sole basis of the conviction of the accused. Keeping in mind the
said principle, so also, requirement for the prosecution to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence led
before the trial Court is assessed/evaluated.
7. Evidence of informant (PW-1) and FIR lodged by her
indicates that the incident in question has occurred on 6th February
2014 at about 6:00 p.m. It is thereafter the victim disclosed the
said incident to her mother. The father of the victim was informed
Page 4 of 9
th
17 February 2026
CRAPEAL-843-2017-DRAFT.DOC
about the same over phone. However, father of the victim came
home late in the night. On the next day, he took the victim to the
school and thereafter went to the police station for lodging report.
Informant in her substantive evidence before the trial Court
provides explanation for not lodging the report immediately. The
sequence of events that is apparent from the evidence on record is
self explanatory. In the facts of case it cannot be said that there
was any delay much less any deliberate delay on the part of the
informant to lodge report. It is settled position of law that causing
of delay in lodging report by itself would not become a ground for
discarding the case of prosecution. The conduct of the parents of
the victim is that of a prudent person. The father of the victim
took the victim to the school and met Principal of the school
intimating the Principal about the occurrence of the incident. It is
thereafter they went to the police station and lodged report. Thus,
no fault can be found from the act of the parents of the victim of
the lodging of the report on the next date of the incident.
Moreover, there is absolutely no material on record to hold that
the report has been lodged with mala fide intention or any ulterior
motive. The facts appearing from evidence on record clearly
explain the time taken for lodging of report and, hence, accused
would not be entitled to get any benefit from the same.
8. Victim in her deposition before the trial Court gives
narration of the incident and the manner in which it occurred. She
states that when she was studying in 5th standard, on the fateful
day while returning home from school in the bus, there were only
Page 5 of 9
th
17 February 2026
CRAPEAL-843-2017-DRAFT.DOC
three students left in the bus including victim. She further states
that she along with her female friend was sitting on the last seat of
the bus and the boy was sitting in front. She claims that while the
bus was in motion the conductor/cleaner came towards her and
while coming he was seen falling. When he came closed to her,
she perceived the smell of liquor. She specifically states that the
accused the pulled her hair and thereafter put his hand on her
shoulder and moved his hand on her chest. She then states having
seen mother of the boy outside the bus. The said lady stopped the
bus and along with the boy, the victim as well as the female friend
of the victim alighted from the bus. Immediately after getting
down from the bus, she caught hold of the hand of the mother of
the boy and disclosed the occurrence of the incident to her
immediately.
9. The said version of the victim gets support from PW-3, who
states on oath before the trial Court that on 6 th February 2014,
when her son and victim got down from the bus she was crying
and hugged her. The witness further states that the victim
disclosed to her about the incident which has occurred in the bus
and the acts done by the accused to her. There is further
corroboration to the version of victim from the evidence of PW-4,
i.e., the boy who was travelling in the bus at the relevant time. He
confirms the fact that at that time only three children remained in
the bus. He further specifically states about the conductor
touching body of the victim and also pulling her hair. He also
states that all three children got down from the bus and he and
Page 6 of 9
th
17 February 2026
CRAPEAL-843-2017-DRAFT.DOC
victim were crying at that time. He further deposes about the
incident being disclosed to his mother.
10. In the cross-examination the victim admits that there used
to occur instances wherein the conductor used to scold the
children whenever the children were playing in the bus. She,
however, denies that because of the same she has any grudge
against the conductor. First of all, there is no sufficient/cogent
reason brought on record to falsely involve accused and,
moreover, there was nothing brought on record by the defence to
disbelieve or discard evidence of the victim. Apart from the fact
that the evidence of the victim is consistent to the previous
statement, the same gets due support from evidence of PW-4 and
PW-3.
11. As far as the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel
for the Appellant with regard to the non examination of the girl,
who was present in the bus is concerned, section 134 of Evidence
Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any
case be required for the proof of any fact. It is thus clear that
examination of any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact
is not contemplated. What is material is the quality of the
evidence and not quantity thereof. The prosecution has examined
victim to substantiate the occurrence of the incident as claimed by
the informant in the FIR. There is corroboration to her version
from the evidence of the boy witness and the evidence of his
mother. The prosecution, therefore, has sufficiently proved the
Page 7 of 9
th
17 February 2026
CRAPEAL-843-2017-DRAFT.DOC
occurrence of the incident. In such circumstances, non
examination of the girl witness, who was present in the bus, is
inconsequential and, in any event, does not affect the genuineness
of case of prosecution.
12. The evidence led by the prosecution unerringly indicates
that the victim was studying in 5 th standard. The age of the victim
at the relevant time was 11 years. The defence during the trial has
not raised any objection with regard to the fact that victim is a
minor and hence child under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. Even
in the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
he does not dispute the fact that the victim was studying in 5th
standard at the relevant time. The provisions of POCSO Act are
therefore, rightly invoked in the present case. Section 29 of the
Act provides for presumption of the guilt of the accused
prosecution for the offences under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9. Once the
prosecution proves the fundamental and foundational facts the
onus would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption under
the said provision. Herein this case, there is absolutely no
evidence on record in order to hold that the accused/Appellant
has been falsely implicated in this crime.
13. The evidence of the victim is wholly reliable and it get
supports from the other evidence on record in the form of
testimony of the the boy, who was present in the bus, so also, his
mother to whom immediately the occurrence of the incident came
to be disclosed by the victim. This Court, therefore, finds no
Page 8 of 9
th
17 February 2026
CRAPEAL-843-2017-DRAFT.DOC
hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. The defence/accused on the
other hand, has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 29
of the Act and consequently, this Court finds no reason or
justification to cause inference in the impugned Judgment and
Order of conviction.
14. At this stage, there is nothing on record to indicate the exact
period of imprisonment undergone by the Appellant/accused and
hence, it would be appropriate to direct to undergo the remaining
sentence, if any. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(a) The Appeal stands dismissed.
(b) In case the Appellant has not undergone the entire
sentence imposed against him by the impugned
Judgment and Order, it be ensured that he undergoes
the same.
(c) The Appeals stands disposed of accordingly.
(d) R & P be sent back to the Trial Court.
15. In view of disposal of the Appeal, pending Interim
Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 9 of 9
th
17 February 2026
Checking your session…