Bombay High Court
AKASH SUBHASH RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The application for suspension of sentence and bail is rejected.
Summary
Akash Rathod was convicted in Special Case (POCSO) No.397 of 2021 for sexual assault of a seven‑year‑old boy under Section 377 IPC and Sections 4(2) and 8 of the POCSO Act. He filed a criminal application seeking suspension of his sentence and bail, alleging false implication, lack of a test identification parade, and insufficient scientific evidence. The prosecution opposed, relying on the victim’s testimony, the mother’s corroboration, a medical officer’s opinion, and a DNA match linking the accused to semen stains on the victim’s clothing. The High Court examined the material, found the evidence prima facie sufficient, and was not persuaded by the accused’s contentions. Consequently, the Court rejected the application for suspension of sentence and bail, noting that the appeal could be taken up for final disposal.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under Section 377 IPC and Sections 4(2) and 8 POCSO is supported by sufficient evidence to deny bail and suspension of sentence.
- Whether the absence of a test identification parade and alleged shortcomings in scientific evidence warrant suspension of the sentence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 377
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4(2), 8
Subjects
- sexual assault
- child sexual abuse
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- DNA evidence
- identification parade
- POCSO
- IPC Section 377
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46574
CriAppln-77-2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 77 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2026
Akash s/o Subhash Rathod
Age: 27 years, Occu.: Private Service,
R/o. Shivneri Society, H.No.05,
Bajajnagar, Aurangabad,
Permanent R/o. Sevanagar Taibhi,
Taluka and District Yavatmal … Applicant
[Accused]
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station,
M.I.D.C. Waluj,
Taluka and District Aurangabad.
2. X.Y.Z. … Respondent
…..
Mr. Sopan B. Bobade, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Ashwini A. Lomte, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed
Through Legal Aid).
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 05.10.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.10.2026
ORDER :
1. Instant application is for suspension of sentence awarded in
Special Case (POCSO) No.397 of 2021 dated 18.03.2024 for offence
under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and under Section
CriAppln-77-2026
-2-
4(2), 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
[POCSO Act] and equally, prayer is raised for grant of bail also.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is
false implication. Except the child witness, who is tutored, there is no
other evidence. Moreover, the prosecution had not conducted a Test
Identification Parade for establishing the identity of the accused. The
scientific evidence also does not support the prosecution. Such crucial
aspects have not been considered and properly appreciated by the
learned Trial Court. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred.
The applicant has been in jail since 05.11.2021, and as the appeal is
of the year 2026, it may not be heard immediately. Therefore, he
prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
3. Learned APP for respondent No.1 as well as learned Counsel for
respondent No.2/victim have strongly opposed the application and
relief by pointing out that serious offence is proved to be committed.
That, testimony of victim finds support from medical evidence. That,
DNA report also confirms involvement of accused.
4. Perused the papers. Applicant seems to be tried vide Special
Case (POSCO) No.397 of 2021 for offence under Section 377 of IPC
and under Sections 4(2) and 8 of POCSO Act. Case of prosecution in
CriAppln-77-2026
-3-
Trial Court is based on eight witnesses. Crucial evidence is of PW1
victim boy, PW2 mother of the victim and PW5 medical officer.
5. PW1 Victim, in his evidence at Exhibit-19, gave his age as seven
years. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that accused resides
in his neighbourhood. He had called victim and asked him to remove
his half pant and after making him sleep, accused inserted his penis in
his anus. Accused offered him coin of Rs.10/-. He further deposed
that he went home and reported his mother. PW2 the mother of the
victim also deposed that, in the evening, when she returned home,
she noticed that her son was wearing Grey pant instead of black pant,
which he had worn earlier. She questioned him about the same, and
he allegedly told her that the black pant had become wet. When she
insisted to show her the pant to verify whether he had urinated on it,
she noticed white spots and a smell emanating from the pant. She
therefore became doubtful and made further inquiries and he
narrated that uncle residing in the neighbourhood called him, made
him sleep, removed his pant and committed the above act and that
thereafter accused has wiped his own male organ with the pant of the
victim. She reported the incident to her sister-in-law and then police
was approached.
CriAppln-77-2026
-4-
6. PW5 Medical officer opined that possibility of sexual assault
cannot be ruled out. PW8 chemical analyzer claims that DNA profile
obtained from semen stains cutting from full pant of victim and
controlled DNA profile obtained from the blood samples of accused
are identical and of the same male origin. Thus, prima facie, there
seems to be positive scientific evidence.
7. Considering the above material, this Court is not inclined to
suspend the sentence and grant bail, however, if the applicant so
desires, his appeal itself can be taken up for final disposal. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
. Criminal Application is rejected.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
scm
Checking your session…