Bombay High Court

JAYESH NEHARU SURYAWANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

The court rejected the suspension of sentences for accused Nos. 1‑4 but allowed bail and suspended the sentence of accused No.5 during the pendency of his appeal.

Summary

The High Court considered two criminal applications filed by the original accused in Special Case No. 113 of 2023, seeking suspension of their life and term sentences and bail pending appeal. The accused were convicted under Sections 376‑D, 376‑DA, 363, 366 of the IPC, Section 34, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, with life imprisonment for the first four accused and additional terms and fines. The defence argued lack of medical evidence of injury and questioned the reliability of the victim’s testimony, while the prosecution relied on consistent victim statements and DNA evidence. The Court found prima facie evidence, including DNA, sufficient to uphold the convictions of accused Nos. 1‑4 and rejected their application for suspension of sentences. However, it held that accused No.5 had a minimal role and granted him bail, suspending his sentence during the pendency of his appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the substantive sentences of life imprisonment and term imprisonment awarded to the accused should be suspended pending appeal.
Whether bail can be granted to accused No.5 given the nature of his alleged involvement.
Whether the absence of medical injuries and the victim’s testimony affect the validity of the conviction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 235(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 363, 366, 376-D, 376-DA
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6

Subjects

POCSO
sexual assault
bail
suspension of sentence
DNA evidence
medical evidence
life imprisonment
criminal appeal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:9833-DB
(1)
Cri. Appln No. 3628-2025 & another.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3628 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 718 of 2025

KISHOR PANDIT SURYAWANSHI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
….
Advocate for the applicants : Mr. Mukul Kulkarni
A.P.P for Respondent/State : Mr. S. R. Wakale
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Pramila V. Giri (Appointed)

WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2973 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2025

JAYESH NEHARU SURYAWANSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
….
Advocate for the applicant : Mr. Chaitanya C. Deshpande
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S. R. Wakale
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Pramila V. Giri (Appointed)
…..

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

RESERVING ON : JANUARY 22, 2026
PRONOUNCING ON : MARCH 09, 2026

FINAL ORDER (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J):-
‘

1. The applicants in Criminal Application No. 3628 of 2025

are the original accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Special Case No. 113 of

2023 and the applicant in Criminal Application No. 2973 of

2025 is the accused No.5 in the aforesaid case.
(2)
Cri. Appln No. 3628-2025 & another.odt
2. By these applications, the applicants, who are the

original accused in the aforesaid case, are seeking suspension

of their substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to

them by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) and Additional

Sessions Judge, Dhule (hereinafter referred to as the “Learned

Trial Judge”) in the aforesaid case vide judgment and order

dated 26.06.2025, during the pendency of these appeals and

also their release on bail. Since the applicants in both these

applications are original accused from the same case, we deem

it proper to decide both these applications jointly.

3. All these applicants are convicted by the learned Trial

Judge as under :-

(I) Accused Nos. 1) Kishor Pandit Suryawanshi, 2)
Chhotu @ Prasad Ratilal Bagul, 3) Chetan Bhatu
Bagul, 4) Sandesh Ramdas Sable, 5) Jayesh
Neharu Suryawanshi are convicted vide Section
235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the
offences punishable under Section 376-D, 376-DA,
363 and 366 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 4 and 6 of The Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

(II) Accused Nos. 1) Kishor Pandit Suryawanshi, 2) Chootu @
Prasad Ratilal Bagul, 3) Chetan Bhatu Bagul, 4) Sandesh
Ramdas Sable, 5) jayesh Neharu Suryawanshi are
(3)
Cri. Appln No. 3628-2025 & another.odt
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, which shall
mean imprisonment for the remainder of their natural
life and each accused to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs.
Ten Thousand only) in respect of offence punishable
under Section 376-DA r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In default of payment of fine, each of them is further
sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
(III) Accused Nos. 1) Kishor Pandit Suryawanshi, 2) Chhotu @
Prasad Ratilal Bagul, 3) Chetan Bhatu Bagul, 4) Sandesh
Ramdas Sable, 5) Jayesh Neharu Suryawanshi are
sentence to suffer simple imprisonment for one year, and
each accused to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs.One
Thousand only) in respect of offence punishable under
Section 363 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default
of payment of fine, each of them is further sentenced to
suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

(IV) Accused Nos. 1) Kishor Pandit Suryawanshi, 2) Chootu @
Prasad Ratilal Bagul, 3) Chetan Bhatu Bagul, 4) Sandesh
Ramdas Sable, 5) Jayesh Neharu Suryawanshi are
sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years,
and each of them to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two
Thousand only) in respect of offence punishable under
Section 366 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default
of payment of fine, each of them is further sentenced to
suffer simple imprisonment for one month. ”

4. As per the prosecution story, grand-daughter of the

informant, who is the victim in the instant case, was aged

about 13 years at the time of incident. When the informant on
(4)
Cri. Appln No. 3628-2025 & another.odt
03.06.2023, made enquiry with her, she disclosed that on the

same day in the Wee hours at about 1.00 a.m., when she had

gone to attend nature’s call, all these applicants/accused

caught hold of her and by taking her in the field of one

Govinda Gaikwad, applicant Chottu @ Prasad and applicant-

Chetan committed forcible sexual intercourse with her,

whereas the other applicants facilitated them to commit the

offence.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants, who are original

accused Nos. 1 to 4, submits that the learned Trial Judge did

not appreciate the facts on record in proper manner and

wrongly convicted them, despite there being no supportive

medical evidence to the version of victim on record. He

pointed out that, the Medical Officer, who examined the victim,

has in fact stated that there were no external injuries found on

the private part of the victim, and therefore, it can be gathered

that the story of the prosecution about forcible sexual

intercourse with the victim, is suspicious. He also submitted

that, the Medical Officer i.e. P.W.4 Dr. Vaishali Shirsath,

further admitted in the cross-examination that she was unable

to give any opinion regarding examination of the victim, even

at the time of deposition. Further, according to her, hymen of
(5)
Cri. Appln No. 3628-2025 & another.odt
the victim might have torn prior to the date of incident, as

there are multiple reasons for such hymen torn. Moreover, the

learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that the

victim was examined by the said Medical officer belatedly i.e.

on 5.6.2023. Thus, he prayed for release of the applicants by

suspending their substantive sentences of imprisonment.

6. As against this, the learned counsel for applicant /

accused No.5 in Criminal Application No. 2973 of 2025

submits that, there is no role of this applicant in the

commission of the crime and even the informant in the F.I.R

itself stated that the victim told her that he was only present at

the time of incident and left from there without raising any

protest.

7. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. as well as the learned

counsel for respondent No.2/ victim, strongly supported the

conviction of the applicants /accused and submitted that, the

learned Trial Judge after considering the entire material on

record, has convicted them. According to them, all applicants

have committed crime against society and the evidence of

victim about the alleged criminal act of the applicants is

consistent and supported by the scientific evidence, such as

DNA report. As such, there is no case made out by the
(6)
Cri. Appln No. 3628-2025 & another.odt
applicants for their release on bail.

8. On-going through the evidence on record and the

impugned judgment, it is evident that the prosecution is

claiming that accused No.1 Kishor Suryawanshi pressed

mouth of the victim, accused No.2 Chottu @ Prasad and

accused No.4 Sandesh caught hold of her legs and took her in

the agricultural field of Govind Gaikwad and there accused

No.2 Chottu @ Prasad and accused No.3 Chetan committed

forcible sexual intercourse with the victim. As such, there

appears active role of these accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the

commission of the crime. The prosecution has also claimed

that, accused No.5 Jayesh had also come there and saw the

incident, but he left the spot instead of restraining the other

accused.

9. It is significant to note that, as per the informant also,

the victim did not narrate her about any active role of accused

No.5 Jayesh. As per the FIR, the victim had only told her

about the presence of Jayesh, but did not state about any

overtact by him. Moreover, though the victim, while deposing

before the Court, has stated that accused No.5 Jayesh had

lifted her from the back side, but she has not stated anything

against him further. Even while deposing about the main
(7)
Cri. Appln No. 3628-2025 & another.odt
incident of committing forcible sexual intercourse with her, she

did not state anything about accused No.5 Jayesh. On the

contrary, she is consistent with the prosecution story in

respect of the act performed by accused Nos. 1 to 4.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused Nos. 1 to 4

tried to argue that the Medical Officer Dr. Vaishali Shirsat, who

had examined the victim, did not find any injury to the private

part of the victim and stated that there were multiple reasons

for tearing of hymen of the victim. However, such argument

can be considered at the time of final hearing. At this

juncture, there is prima facie evidence against the involvement

of applicants/accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the crime and the

scientific evidence in the form of DNA report supports the

prosecution case. Under such circumstances, we are not

inclined to suspend the substantive sentences of imprisonment

awarded to applicants/accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Criminal

Application No. 3628 of 2025. However, considering the role of

applicant/accused No.5 in Criminal Application No. 2973 of

2025 as mentioned above, he can be released on bail during

the pendency of his appeal. As such, we pass following order.

ORDE R

(A) Criminal Application No. 3628 of 2025 stands
rejected, whereas Criminal Application No. 2973
(8)
Cri. Appln No. 3628-2025 & another.odt
of 2025 is hereby allowed.
(B) The substantive sentence of imprisonment
imposed upon the applicant/accused No.5
Jayesh Neharu Suryawanshi in Spl. Case No. 113
of 2023 under judgment and order dated
26.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge
(POCSO) and Additional Sessions Judge
Dhule, is hereby suspended during the pendency
of this appeal and he is released on execution
of P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one or more sureties in the
like amount.
(C) The fees of the learned counsel for respondent
No.2 (appointed) in both the applications is
quantified to Rs.6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand
only) and it be paid by the High Court Legal
Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad to her as
expeditiously as possible.
(D) The applications are accordingly disposed of.

(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…