SURAJ SARDARSINGH CHAVHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:46416


                                                                       CriApplication-4004-2026
                                                     -1-

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4004 OF 2026
                                 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 235 OF 2026

                 Suraj Sardarsingh Chavhan
                 Age – 35 years, Occupation – Labour,
                 R/o. Daregaon, Taluka and District Jalna.               … Applicant

                         Versus

                 1.      State of Maharashtra
                         Through Officer Incharge,
                         Police Station Kadin Jalna, District Jalna.

                 2.      X Y Z – Victim                                  … Respondents
                                                    …..
                              Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicant.
                           Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                     Mr. Sarita Maru Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (appointed)
                                                    .....

                                            CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                            Reserved on   : 01.10.2026
                                            Pronounced on : 05.10.2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.      Present application is for suspension of substantive sentence

                 and granted of bail as a result of judgment and order of conviction

                 rendered by learned Additional sessions Judge, Jalna dated

                 12.03.2026 in Session Case No. 28 of 2015 holding applicant guilty

                 for offence under Section 376 of IPC.



                 2.      Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is false

                 implication. That, at the threshold, prosecution miserably failed to
                                                 CriApplication-4004-2026
                                   -2-

prove minority of the victim. According to him, there is no conclusive

proof on the point of age of victim. On this count, he took this Court

through the evidence of victim PW3 and Headmaster PW8 and would

submit that, the school authority has placed on record school extract

while the victim was in 6th standard. According to him, there is no

birth certificate and father has not given date of birth of his daughter.

Therefore, there is weak evidence on the point of age. Moreover,

according to him, relations were consensual and prosecution evidence

itself suggests so. That, applicant was on bail during trial. He has not

misused liberty and sentence being a fixed term sentence, he prays for

suspension of the same and for grant of bail.


3.    Learned APP as well as learned counsel for victim, both oppose

on the ground that prosecution has proved by adducing cogent

evidence that victim was minor. They both pointed out that PW8

Headmaster has verified about entries taken in the school record on

the basis of Transfer Certificate (TC) received from primary school of

the victim. Therefore, there is legally acceptable evidence on the point

of age. According to them, victim being minor, even if there are

relations and long acquaintance, her consent is immaterial. They both

justify the judgment and order of conviction to be on full fledged trial

and oppose the relief.
                                               CriApplication-4004-2026
                                 -3-

4.    Heard. Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and

order of conviction and in such appeal, present application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail is pressed into service. Case

of prosecution in trial court seems to be rested on the evidence of

nine witnesses.



5.    Here, ground is raised that prosecution has failed to

substantiate minority of the victim. As pointed out, PW2 father is

found to be conspicuously silent on the date of birth of his daughter.

While recording evidence of victim, learned trial court has noted date

of birth given by victim as 05.08.1998, but birth certificate is not

placed on record and father of victim has admitted to that extent in

cross para 2 about not giving any document relating to date of birth

of victim.



6.    PW8 Headmaster, in his evidence at Exhibit 85, deposed that

victim took admission in 6th standard on 01.07.2009. According to

him, her date of birth is 05.08.1998. He further deposed that such

date is noted in the school record on the basis of TC received from

earlier school, namely primary school. While under cross, he admitted

that he did not carry original documents tendered at the time of

admission of victim and he also admitted that on 01.07.2009 i.e. at
                                                  CriApplication-4004-2026
                                   -4-

the time of admission of victim, only document taken was TC. The

Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent case of P. Yuvaprakash v. State

Represented by Inspector of Police [2023 INSC 676] has categorically

held that Transfer Certificate is not a proof of date of birth of a victim

in a case under the POCSO Act.


7.     Resultantly, as pointed out, indeed, on the point of minority of

the victim, there does not seem to be conclusive proof. Further, as

pointed out, victim in her chief para 3 itself has deposed about

acquaintance, talking and chatting with accused, who according to

her, has expressed his liking for her. That, she accompanied him to

Jalna and to his sister’s place at Daregaon. Again in para 4 of chief

itself, she states that there were physical relations between herself

and accused. She does not speak about said act to be forceful or

against her wish. Therefore, indeed there are good grounds on merits

to be dealt, but in appeal. Resultantly, applicant succeeds. Hence, the

following order :

                                 ORDER

I.    Criminal Application stands allowed.


II.   The substantive sentence imposed on the applicant in Special
      Case No. 28 of 2015 by the District Judge 3 and Additional
      Sessions Judge, Jalna on 12.03.2026 stands suspended till the
      final hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2026.
                                                   CriApplication-4004-2026
                                       -5-



III. The applicant be released on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
       Fifteen Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties in the like
       amount.


IV. The applicant shall not commit any criminal activity.


V.     The applicant shall remain present before the learned trial Judge
       once in six months, till final hearing and disposal of the appeal,
       commencing from the date he tenders bail papers and thereafter,
       the trial Judge to fix dates for his subsequent appearances.


VI. In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the applicant to
       remain present before the trial court, the trial court to inform
       this court about the same and in that eventuality, the
       prosecution would be at liberty to file an application for
       cancellation of bail granted to the applicant.


VII.    Bail before the trial court.


VIII. Fees of the learned counsel appointed to represent respondent
        no.2 be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
        Aurangabad, as per Rules.



                                             [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre