SHYAM SHANKAR JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38431


                                                                    CriAppln-2191-2026
                                                   -1-

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2191 OF 2026
                                                IN
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.454 OF 2026

                 Shyam s/o Shankar Jadhav
                 Age: 28 years, Occu.: Education,
                 R/o. Rahera Tanda, Tq. Ghansawangi,
                 District Jalna.                                          .. Applicant

                       Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Police Inspector,
                 Karmad Police Station,
                 District Chh. Sambhajinagar                              .. Respondent

                                                   ...
                 Mr. Pratik A. Bhosle, Advocate for applicant.
                 Mrs. A. S. Mantri, APP for respondent/State.
                                                   ...

                                                CORAM :      ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                          RESERVED ON :      24.08.2026
                                       PRONOUNCED ON :       25.08.2026

                 ORDER :-


                 1.      Instant application is for suspension of sentence awarded by

                 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in

                 Sessions Case No.181 of 2022 for offence under Section 376(2)(f),

                 506 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and equally, prayer is raised for

                 grant of bail also.
                                                      CriAppln-2191-2026
                                   -2-

2.    In support of relief of suspension of sentence, learned Counsel

for applicant submits that there is false implication. That, learned

Trial Court has not considered the evidence in its correct perspective.

That, sole testimony of victim has been relied even when there was no

sufficient corroboration from medical corner. That, there was no

evidence of forceful rape or signs of resistance and, therefore,

possibility of consensual act cannot be ruled out. According to him,

victim was old, full-grown lady and accused was her relative. There

are allegations that in absence of husband, there was physical contact.

That, applicant was on bail during trial and as appeal being of 2026

and there being no chances of hearing the appeal in near future, relief

of suspension of sentence is urged for.


3.    Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that

serious offence of rape is proved to be committed and, therefore,

considering the gravity of offence, application is sought to be rejected.


4.    Heard. Perused the papers. It is emerging that PW1 victim

deposed at Exhibit-14 that accused is her maternal cousin. That, on

04.02.2021 when her husband left for work at 8.30 a.m., while she

was collecting clothes in the bathroom, accused came and caught her

and, therefore, she called her daughter, who was playing outside. She

claims that she was taken inside the bathroom and from there he
                                                     CriAppln-2191-2026
                                  -3-

himself answered the call of daughter saying that mother is not at

home. The victim tried to flee, but when she fell at the doors of the

bathroom she claims that he undressed her and committed sexual

assault on her. He took the daughter of victim on his motorcycle and

while going, he issued threats to throw her daughter from the

motorcycle. She duly informed her husband on phone and then

approached police station and gave complaint Exhibit-15, on the basis

of which crime seems to be registered.

      She has faced cross-examination, wherein omissions have been

brought to the extent of she being gagged and about threats issued by

accused to throw her daughter from motorcycle. So much is the only

cross-examination.


5.    PW2 is the husband of victim and he deposed about receiving

phone call from wife on the point of she being sexually ravished by

accused.


6.    PW4 is the medical expert. Medico Legal Examination report

placed on record is primarily relied now to show that there are no

signs of resistance or fresh injury. However, at this stage, it is not

open for this Court to appreciate the evidence on the ground that

there is no corroboration. On full-fledged trial, conviction has been

recorded. At this stage it is to be only seen whether there are grounds
                                                     CriAppln-2191-2026
                                  -4-

on merits to suspend the sentence.


7.    Not finding any convincing ground and taking into account the

nature of charges proved, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief

of suspension of sentence. Hence, the following order is passed :-


                                ORDER


      .     Criminal Application is rejected.



                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



scm