Bombay High Court
MAQBOOL AHMED MOHD. SHARIFversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court rejected the interim application for suspension of sentence, finding no merit in the appellant's claims and determining that the conviction stands pending appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Maqbool Ahmed Mohd. Sharif, was convicted by a Special Judge for penetrative sexual assault of a 15‑year‑old girl and related offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act, receiving a 20‑year rigorous imprisonment. He filed an interim application seeking suspension of his sentence and bail, arguing that the victim’s status as a child was not established, the pregnancy timeline was implausible, and the DNA report was unreliable. The State opposed, contending that the evidence, including the victim’s testimony and DNA report, proved the offences beyond doubt. The High Court held that at the stage of a suspension application the court does not re‑appreciate evidence but must assess the likelihood of success on appeal, finding no patent infirmity in the trial court’s findings. Consequently, the court rejected the interim application and ordered the appeal to be heard expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal
- Whether the victim’s age establishes the applicability of the POCSO Act
- Whether the DNA report is admissible and reliable despite alleged procedural infirmities
- Whether the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376(2), 506(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 10, 6
Subjects
- sexual assault
- child sexual abuse
- POCSO Act
- suspension of sentence
- bail
- DNA evidence
- conviction
- appeal
Judgment
35 APEAL-772-26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 772 OF 2026
Maqbool Ahmed Mohd. Sharif ..Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & anr. …Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4734 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL NO. 772 OF 2026
Mr. Tanoj Joshi, for the Appellant.
Ms. Rashmi Tendulkar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Akshay Dingale, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026
ORDER :-
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.09.19
17:11:53 +0530
IA/4734/2025
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application for suspension of sentence and to
enlarge the applicant on bail.
3. The gravamen of indictment against the applicant is that
the applicant was residing alongwith the victim, who was then
15 years of age, and her mother. The mother of the victim was
working as a housemaid. The applicant was plying a taxi. After
SAINATH, PA 1/5
35 APEAL-772-26.DOC
the mother of the applicant left the house for work, the victim
alleged, the applicant returned and subjected her to penetrative
sexual assault on multiple occasions. The accused had beaten
her and threatened to set her ablaze if she disclosed the
incidents to her mother. When the victim was at her native place
in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the victim was taken to the Doctor
and it then transpired that, the victim was carrying 5 months
pregnancy. Upon being inquired, the victim narrated the
incident of sexual exploitation at the hands of the applicant.
4. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Special
Judge convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under
Sections 376(2) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). For the major offence
punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the applicant
has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years
and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.
5. Mr. Tanoj Joshi, the learned Counsel for the applicant
submitted that, the impugned judgment suffers from patent
infirmities. Firstly, the fact that the victim was a child itself has
not been established. Secondly, the prosecution version is
inherently improbable. As the factum of pregnancy must have
SAINATH, PA 2/5
35 APEAL-772-26.DOC
been discovered much before the victim was found to be
carrying pregnancy of 7 months. Thirdly, DNA report which
indicates that, the applicant and victim were the biological
parents of the baby, died during Medical Termination of
Pregnancy (MTP), could not have been relied upon for the
apparent infirmities in the process of collection and analysis of
the samples.
6. In opposition to this, Ms. Tendulkar, the learned APP for
Respondent – State, and Mr. Akshay Dingale, the learned
Counsel for Respondent No.2, stoutly opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence. It was submitted that, the offences have
been proved to the hilt as it was an open and shut case. The
testimony of the victim finds support in the conclusive DNA
report.
7. At the stage of considering an application for suspension
of sentence, the Appellate Court is not expected to meticulously
evaluate the evidence. It has to be seen whether the convict has
a fair chance of success in the appeal. Re-appreciation of
evidence is not permissible.
8. In the context of the broad view that emerges from the
material on record, this Court finds it rather difficult to accede
to the submissions of Mr. Joshi. On the aspect of the age of the
SAINATH, PA 3/5
35 APEAL-772-26.DOC
victim, the trial Court has analyzed the documents, tendered in
support of the prosecution case. Those findings do not suffer
from patent error or infirmity.
9. The victim has categorically deposed about the
circumstances in which she was subjected to penetrative sexual
assault. Interestingly, during the course of cross-examination of
the victim and her mother, an endeavour was made to drive
home the point that, the sexual relations were rather
consensual.
10. The testimony of the victim, at this stage, commands
weight and also finds prima facie unwavering support in the
DNA report. At this juncture, the report of DNA analysis cannot
be discarded for the purported infirmities in the collection and
analysis of the samples. The fact that, the applicant was
residing with the victim and her mother, was also deposed to by
the daughter of the landlord of the subject premises. If viewed
through this prism, it would be rather difficult to accede to the
submission of Mr. Joshi that, the prosecution case is inherently
improbable.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this court is not inclined to
exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.
SAINATH, PA 4/5
35 APEAL-772-26.DOC
12. Hence the following order :-
::ORDER::
(i) The Interim Application stands rejected.
(ii) The hearing of the Appeal stands expedited.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 5/5
Checking your session…