RAMDAS RAMJI PRASAD PALYAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38422


                                                                      CriAppeal-913-2025



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 913 OF 2025

                 Ramdas s/o Ramji Prasad (Palya),
                 Age : 26 years, Occupation Nil,
                 R/o: Shivsai, Jaibhavani Nagar,
                 G. No. 11, Aurangabad,
                 Taluka and District Aurangabad.                  … Appellant
                                                                  (Orig. Accused)
                       Versus

                 1.    The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Police Station Officer,
                       Pundalik Nagar Police Station,
                       Aurangabad, Tal and District Aurangabad.

                 2.    XYZ                                        … Respondents

                                                   …..
                           Mr. Dhananjay S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
                          Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
                      Ms. Nayana Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed)
                                                   …..
                                         CORAM :       ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                         Reserved on       : 24.08.2026
                                         Pronounced on     : 25.08.2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.    Original accused no.1 hereby challenges the judgment and

                 order dated 29.06.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO),

                 Aurangabad in Special Case (POCSO) No. 364 of 2021, convicting

                 appellant for offence under Sections 376(3), 354, 354-A(2) of IPC


                                                 [1]
                                                       CriAppeal-913-2025



and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).



2.    Brief snapshot of prosecution case in trial court is that, PW1

victim aged 13 years was put up with her sister, a Nurse, after losing

both parents. It is prosecution case that, on 15.07.2021, present

appellant and two other boys, i.e. Vaibhav and Nilesh, visited their

house and her sister told her that those persons are like her brothers.

On 31.08.2021, while she was sleeping in the house at 7.00 am in the

morning and her sister had been to attend duty, at that time,

appellant obtained keys of the house from her aunt, who had locked

the house from outside, opened the door and compelled victim to

accompany him for police training. Victim’s sister also, on phone,

suggested her to go with him and therefore she accompanied him and

he took her to a building in a car driven by co-accused Ajay and there,

on the pretext of giving massage, he undressed the victim, outraged

her modesty by groping her and had sexual intercourse with her, after

which he threatened to make the incident viral if she informs anyone,

and then he dropped her to her house. On reaching home, she

reported the incident to her sister and they approached police and

lodged complaint Exhibit 25.

                                  [2]
                                                      CriAppeal-913-2025




      PW4, who was entrusted with the investigation, carried out the

same and after gathering sufficient evidence, chargesheeted both

accused, who were tried vide Special Case (POCSO) No. 364 of 2021

which ended up in above conviction. Hence the instant appeal.



              EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT


3.    Prosecution has, in support of its case, adduced evidence of

four witnesses. Their role and status and the sum and substance of

their evidence can be summarized as under :




PW1 is the informant/victim. Her evidence is dealt in detail at
       appropriate place.




PW2    is the aunt and she deposed in her testimony at Exhibit 34
       that, the incident took place after Raksha-Bandhan. That day,
       a boy came early morning at 7.00 am. That time, victim was
       sleeping in the neighbouring house and she had locked the
       house during night because victim was alone and her sister
       had been to hospital to attend night duty. She deposed that, in
       the morning the said boy came and demanded keys and she
       inquired its purpose whereupon he told her that victim’s sister


                                 [3]
                                                        CriAppeal-913-2025



       had informed him to take victim for police training and
       therefore she handed over the keys. Then, he opened the door
       and provided training dress to victim. Then she claims that her
       husband questioned her for giving keys, but she informed him
       that she knew the boy and that he had come to meet victim
       and her sister on Raksha-Bandhan and she was introduced to
       them. Then she deposed that both, victim and the boy, went
       out of the house by walk.




PW3    is the medical expert who examined victim after noting the
       history of sexual assault and she noted torn hymen, but stated
       that, on physical examination she did not notice any signs of
       force. Lastly she deposed that, sexual intercourse could not be
       ruled out.




PW4    is the Investigating officer who carried out investigation and
       chargesheeted accused.



                            SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the Appellant-Accused :

4.    Pointing to the above evidence, it is submitted that there is no

convincing, cogent, reliable evidence. That, there is no corroboration

to the testimony of victim. That, even medical evidence does not

support accusations of forceful rape. That, very sister of victim is not

                                   [4]
                                                       CriAppeal-913-2025



examined and that the lady PW2 who is aunt and neighbour, has

herself given keys to the accused and there is nothing adverse against

the appellant in her testimony.



5.    Taking this court through the evidence of the medical expert, it

is pointed out that medical findings belie prosecution case of forceful

rape as there is no injury on the person of victim. That, there is no

evidence about alleged video recording of the incident. That, CA

report is not supporting and therefore, it is his submission that,

prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the charges, but

according to him, in spite of so and in absence of any legally

acceptable evidence, learned trial court has accepted the prosecution

story by ignoring and overlooking the answers given by the victim as

well as the medical expert in the cross. Consequently, he urges to

allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.



On behalf the the respondent-State as well as the Informant :

6.    Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the informant, both

opposed on the ground that, evidence of victim itself is worthy of

credence. That, she has categorically deposed about sexual assault on

her. Advantage of acquaintance and loneliness of the victim has been

                                  [5]
                                                        CriAppeal-913-2025



taken. That, medical witness has deposed about sexual assault to be

not ruled out. Precisely for the said reason, they both justify the

judgment and order of conviction and pray to dismiss the appeal for

want of merits.



                    ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION


7.    As there are charges under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act,

it is incumbent upon prosecution to, at the threshold, establish that

victim was minor. Let us see whether prosecution has discharged its

initial burden by doing so before the trial court.



8.    PW1 victim gave her date of birth as 15.08.2008 and about she

taking education in 9th standard. Second piece of evidence is the birth

certificate gathered by the Investigating Officer which is at Exhibit 60.

Said certificate is issued by the Municipal Corporation, reflecting date

of birth of the victim as 15.08.2008. Therefore, when birth certificate

itself is on record which is issued by the local body, then the same

carries probative value and therefore, needs consideration while

determining age of the victim. There is no challenge to the age of

victim by defence in trial court. Resultantly, there is no hesitation to


                                   [6]
                                                        CriAppeal-913-2025



hold that prosecution proved before the trial court that Victim PW1

was minor on the date of incident i.e on 31.08.2021.



9.    Now, it is to be seen whether further offences under Sections

376(3), 354 and 354-A(2) of IPC along with provisions under

Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act are made out or not. As usual on

this count, reliance can be placed on the testimony of very victim PW1

followed by that of medical expert PW3.



10.   On complete re-analysis and re-appreciation of the evidence of

victim at Exhibit 24, it is noticed that the victim, who was 13 years of

age and studying in 9th standard, was put up with her sister, who was

working as a Nurse in a hospital, and both sisters had lost their

parents 4 years and 11 years back, respectively. In para 2 of the

examination-in-chief, victim deposed that, on 15.07.2021 while she

and her sister were in the house, one Vaibhav along with Ramdas, i.e.

present appellant, and Nilesh came to their house. She claims that,

they were not known to her and her sister introduced them to her

saying that they are like brothers. She identified appellant. Then she

deposed that on 24.08.2021, appellant accused came to their house

for tying rakhi and allegedly told victim that he would provide her

                                  [7]
                                                      CriAppeal-913-2025



police service and for that purpose he would also give her necessary

police training. He tied rakhi and also suggested commencing the

training on 1st September by assuring to provide tracksuit for police

training.



11.   Regarding the occurrence dated 31.08.2021, victim deposed in

para 4 that, as her sister had been to the night duty and she was all

alone and sleeping inside the house, her house was locked from

outside by her aunt. She deposed that at 7.00 a.m., accused obtained

keys of her house from her aunt, opened the door, entered the house,

made her wake up and asked her to come for training purpose and

when she refused assigning reason of pain to the legs, accused made

phone call to her sister during which there were talks between both of

them, and then accused gave her said mobile to talk to sister who

asked her to go with him for training purpose and therefore she

changed her clothes, wore track suit, locked the house and joined

him. they walked towards Dargah Chowk. As it was raining, she

deposed that, accused saw a car and gave call to one Ajay Thakur and

that driver halted the car and she was taken to Beed Bypass near

Patilwada hotel. She identified the car driver Ajay Thakur. Then she

deposed that there was a two storied house and she and accused went

                                 [8]
                                                        CriAppeal-913-2025



inside the building on 2nd floor. Two boys were already present there

and appellant took her in one room, latched the door from inside and

suggested taking practice and then said that for it, massage was

necessary. Then she claims that he removed her clothes, touched her

breasts and then had physical contact. He also did video recording of

the incident in mobile. She claims that he gave her threats that if she

informs anyone, then he will make the video of the incident viral and

then he left her at her place. Due to pains she was crying, and when

her sister inquired, she reported the incident to her sister and

thereafter, next day she lodged complaint Exhibit 25.



      Relevant cross of victim is dealt hereunder :

      Victim answered that, her sister and IO instructed her to give

statement in accordance with the complaint. She further answered

that she, her sister, one Nilesh and Vaibhav had been to the police

station to lodge complaint. She flatly denied that, part of the incident

was reported by her to police and part was stated by her sister. She is

unable to give name of the scriber of the complaint. She answered

that after the incident, and before medical examination, she had

taken bath. However, she denied suggestion that she had washed her

clothes which were on her person at the time of incident. She

                                  [9]
                                                        CriAppeal-913-2025



answered that there was no bleeding after the incident and that, there

were no injuries on her person after the incident nor her clothes were

torn. She stated that she and accused were in that room from 7.00

a.m. to 9.00 a.m. and that no person had seen them entering the

building but only while returning, they were spotted by an old lady.

She is unable to state whether it was residential area. She is unable to

state whether distance between Dargah and Rajeshnagar is 3 kms.

and whether it takes 10 to 15 minutes. She answered that in the car

there was 9 months old daughter of accused Ajay Thakur. She gave

age of the her sister as 19 years and she to be working as Nurse. Rest

is all denial.



12.    PW2 is the aunt and her testimony is already discussed above.

She is not only aunt of victim, but also immediate neighbour. From

the testimony of victim, it is emerging that this witness is the

custodian of keys of the house, which she handed over to accused on

his demand. Victim resided with her sister and when her sister went

to attend night duty, the house was said to be locked from outside

keeping inside the victim, who was all alone. This witness has

deposed at Exhibit 34 that, she knew accused who was introduced to

her on the day of Raksha-Bandhan. Therefore, she seems to have

                                 [10]
                                                       CriAppeal-913-2025



handed over the keys to accused on demand. She has marked the

arrival of accused that day and has also spotted victim accompanying

him walking out of the house. To that extent she has deposed.

Nothing adverse is brought in her cross-examination. Rather,

suggestion is given to her that, when keys were obtained from her,

she was in sleeping mood. In the chief itself, victim has identified

accused Ajay and has clarified by reasserting that he is not the person

to whom she handed over the keys.



13.   Therefore, presence of accused at the house of victim is proved

through this witness. She had seen accused taking victim minor with

him that day.



14.   PW3 is the medical expert who, in her evidence, more

particularly chief, deposed about noting medical history of sexual

assault given by victim dated 31.08.2021 in a room and assailant

having non-consensual sexual intercourse with victim. She has noted

tear to the hymen. However, in chief itself she has stated that, on

physical examination she did not notice signs of use of force. But

again stated that, sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out.




                                 [11]
                                                         CriAppeal-913-2025



      While under cross, she also admitted that, she did not find

victim to be habituated to sex and that she did not find any injury

marks on her person. That, even after perusal of FSL report, she is

unable to firmly state about sexual activity of the victim.



15.   Precisely taking above cross into account, learned counsel for

the appellant would submit that firstly, there was no forceful act and

secondly, medical evidence is not conclusive.



16.   Here, taking into account victim’s testimony, which is primary

and fundamental in view of the charge, this Court has noticed that,

victim was taken to the room on the pretext of police training and she

was made to undress for giving massage, which, according to accused,

was necessary. Victim was 13 years of age at that time, therefore a

minor. It is fairly settled position that there is no rule of law that

testimony of victim cannot be acted upon without corroboration of

material particulars. Even in absence of medical evidence or evidence

about no injury or signs of force, charges can be said to be proved if

the testimony of the victim inspires confidence. Law to this extent has

been expounded and settled in catena of judgments and few could be

named as under:

                                  [12]
                                                      CriAppeal-913-2025



(a) State of Maharashtra v. Chandrapraksh Kewalchand Jain,
    AIR 1990 SC 658;
(b) State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus and anr, AIR 2005 SC 1248;
(c) State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & ors, AIR 1996 SC 1393;
(d) Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC
    191.


      Therefore, victim’s passive submission cannot be construed to

be her consent, more particularly when there are allegations of

videography of the incident being done and threatening to make it

viral. The Investigating Officer has seized mobile of the accused. The

Investigating Officer has stated that, photographs of victim and

accused were attached vide panchanama Exhibits 48 and 49.

Therefore, there is no force in the submission by learned counsel for

the appellant that, there is no recovery or discovery of mobile of

accused containing video of the occurrence.



17.   To sum up, here, firstly, prosecution has demonstrated that

victim was a minor on the date of occurrence. She and her sister

having lost their parents, were residing together. Accused was

introduced to the victim by her own sister when he had accompanied

one Vaibhav who had brother-like relations with victim’s sister.

Apparently, after introduction on 15.07.2021, accused has gained


                                [13]
                                                           CriAppeal-913-2025



entry in the house of victim on 31.08.2021. Prosecution has

substantiated this by adducing testimony of PW2. Moreover, there is

no reason to disbelieve even testimony of victim and there is no

reason brought forth for false implication so as to disbelieve her

version. Consequently, victim being minor and her testimony that

accused had penetrative sexual assault after outraging her modesty,

the charges are squarely brought home. Going by the nature of

accusations, delay of a day is not of much significance.



18.    Learned trial court has dealt with the available evidence in its

proper perspective. As no error or perversity is committed while

accepting the case of prosecution, this Court refrains from disturbing

the impugned judgment. Hence, the following order :

                                ORDER

I.    The appeal is hereby dismissed.


II.   Fees of the learned counsel appointed to represent respondent
      no.2-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).


                                        [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre




                                 [14]