Bombay High Court
ARUN BHAGWAN GAVLIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that there was no ground to grant suspension of sentence or bail as the victim was a minor and consent is not a defence.
Summary
The accused, Arun Gavli, was convicted by a Special Judge under Sections 363 and 376(2)(i)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for kidnapping and rape of a minor. He filed an application seeking suspension of his sentence and bail, arguing that the victim had spent time with him and that the relationship was consensual, and that the appeal pending could be heard later. The State contended that the victim was a minor (14 years 8 months) and that consent is not a defence under the POCSO Act. The High Court examined the evidence, including the victim’s age proof and medical evidence of impregnation, and concluded that the victim was 15 years old at the time, making her a minor and invalidating any claim of consent. Finding no merit in the applicant’s claim of better prospects of success on appeal, the Court refused to grant bail or suspend the sentence. The application was therefore rejected, though the Court noted the appeal could be taken up for hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal.
- Whether consent can be a defence when the alleged victim is a minor under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the age of the victim was correctly determined for the purpose of conviction.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 363, 376(2)(i)(n)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 5(j)(ii)(l), 6, 7, 8
Subjects
- kidnapping
- rape
- POCSO
- minor victim
- consent
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41521
CriAppln-2896-2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2896 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2026
Arun s/o Bhagwan Gavli,
Age: 30 years, Occu.: Labour,
At present in jail,
R/o. Village Gummi,
Tq. and Dist. Buldhana. … Applicant
[Accused]
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Pachora Police Station,
Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon.
2. X. Y. Z. … Respondent
…..
Mr. Sunil. G. Magre, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Kalpana Sonpawale Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2
(Appointed)
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 08.09.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.09.2026
ORDER :
1. Instant application is for suspension of sentence awarded in
Special Case No. 12 of 2017 dated 17.01.2025 by the learned Special
Judge (POCSO), Jalgaon for offence under Section 363, 376(2)(i)(n)
of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and equally, prayer is raised for grant
of bail also.
CriAppln-2896-2026
-2-
2. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has accepted the
case of the prosecution by relying only upon the testimony of PW1
and PW5, i.e. the informant and the victim. However, in the cross-
examination of PW1, there are vital admissions. That, victim spent
sufficient time in the company of applicant and at no point of time
any alarm was raised. The medical evidence does not support the case
of the prosecution. There was no use of force and whatever relations
were developed were consensual. It is further submitted that the
applicant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction by
filing an appeal, however, the appeal is of the year 2026 and the same
may not be heard immediately. As the applicant is behind bars for
more than three years and eleven months, the relief of suspension of
sentence and grant of bail is urged for.
3. Learned APP for respondent No.1/State as well as learned
Counsel for respondent No.2/victim opposed the application on the
ground that victim is proved to be minor. She was 14 years and 8
months old only. Therefore, the defence of consensual relations or
acts has been rightly discarded by learned Trial Court. There is
medical evidence and therefore, relief of suspension of sentence as
well as grant of bail is opposed.
CriAppln-2896-2026
-3-
4. Heard. Perused the papers. It seems that charges were framed
before the learned Trial Court against the applicant for the offences
punishable under Sections 363 and 376(2)(i)(n) of the IPC and under
Sections 4, 5(j)(ii)(l), 6, 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). Ultimately, conviction seems to
have been recorded for the offences punishable under Sections 363
and 376(2)(i)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. There
does not seem to be any serious challenge on the point of the age of
the victim. The learned Trial Court has taken into account the
testimony of the victim, her grandfather and the evidence of PW6 on
the point of age and, in paragraph No.17 of the judgment, has
reached a finding that she was 15 years old and less than 16 years of
age at the time of the incident. The victim has deposed as PW5.
Though she spent time in the company of the applicant, going by the
age proof produced by the prosecution, her passive consent, if any,
also cannot be taken into account at this stage. She was also
impregnated and, therefore, the act of sexual intercourse is also
demonstrated by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court.
Therefore, taking such evidence into account, and there being no
good ground to hold that there are better prospects of success in the
appeal, in view of the nature of the charges proved, this Court is not
inclined to grant the relief as prayed for. However, if the applicant so
CriAppln-2896-2026
-4-
desires, his appeal itself can be taken up for hearing. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
. Criminal Application is rejected.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
scm
Checking your session…