CHANDEVDAS RAMANAND DASversusTHE UNION TERRITORY OF DAMAN AND ORS.

                         201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2024
                            WITH
              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 973 OF 2024
                              IN
                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2024
                            WITH
             INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1698 OF 2025
                              IN
                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2024

Chandevdas Ramanand Das                             ]
Age about 45 years.                                 ]
Residing At Village: Rampur, Kodra,                 ]
                                                    ]
Post: Kodra, P.S. Pali, Patna,                      ]
Dist: Patna, Bihar State.                           ]
                                                    ]
At present in Lajpore Central Jail, Surat           ]
(Convict No.2077)                                   ] … Appellant/ Applicant

           Versus

1. The Union Territory of Daman                     ]
Coastal Police Station Moti Daman.                  ]

2. XYZ                                              ]
Through Coastal Police Station,                     ]
Moti Daman.                                         ]
Vide C.R. No.06 of 2013.                            ]

3.    The State of Maharashtra                      ] … Respondents

                          --------------------
Ms. Farhana Shah (appointed Advocate) along with Amna Khan, for
the Appellant/ Applicant.

Mr. Ashwin Thool, S.P.P. along with Mr. Ayush Singh, Ms.
Archishmati Chandramore, for the Respondent No.1.

Manisha                                                                        1/20
                        201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




Ms. Sakshee Chavan (appointed Advocate), for the Respondent
No.2.

Ms. Supriya Kak, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.3-State.
                           --------------------
                           CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                            SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

                             DATE : 02 nd FEBRUARY, 2026.

JUDGMENT : [PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]


1.        The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order

dated 30/03/2016 passed by the learned Session Judge, Daman at

Silvasa in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2013. By the impugned

Judgment and Order, the Appellant was convicted for commission

of offence punishable under Section 376(f) and (i) of Indian Penal

Code (IPC). He was sentenced to suffer rigorous life imprisonment

and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for two months. He was also convicted for

commission of offence punishable under Section 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and he was

sentenced to suffer rigorous life imprisonment and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two

months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was

granted set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. The Appellant was



Manisha                                                                       2/20
                          201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




acquitted from the charges under Section 10 of POCSO. The

administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu was directed

to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the victim under the Victim

Assistance Scheme, 2012.



2.        The Prosecution case in brief is as follows :



          The victim in this case was seven years old child. The

Appellant was a distant relative. On 03/02/2013, between 12:00

p.m. to 1:00 p.m, the victim was playing outside her house. The

Appellant took her to his house under the pretext of giving

biscuits/chocolates. Once she was inside the house he locked the

house from inside and committed forcible sexual intercourse upon

her. He didn’t send her back. He himself ran away. While the

victim was returning home, she met her uncle who took her home.

There was bleeding injury from her private part. The uncle lodged

the F.I.R. Investigation was carried out and the Appellant was

arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The victim was

subjected to medical examination. Various panchanamas were

drawn. At the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was

filed and trial was conducted before the learned Sessions Judge as



Manisha                                                                         3/20
                        201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




mentioned earlier.



3.        During trial, the Prosecution examined the victim, her

uncle, her mother, the medical officers, the panchas and the

investigating officer. The defence of the Appellant was of total

denial. According to him, he had not done anything. It was a false

case. He himself had appeared before the Police as he had not done

anything. He was implicated falsely. The learned trial Judge

disbelieved this defence. The learned trial Judge relied on the

evidence of the victim and her near relatives and relied on the

circumstance of the blood of the victim having been found on the

underwear of the Appellant. Based on these circumstances and

evidence, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the

Appellant as mentioned earlier.



4.        The most important evidence in this case is that of the

victim herself. She is examined as PW-7. At the time of recording

her evidence on 14/12/2015, the age of the victim was nine years as

recorded by the learned trial Judge. The date of incident is

03/02/2013. This evidence was recorded after about two and a half

years from the date of the incident and hence she was of the age



Manisha                                                                       4/20
                        201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




around seven years at the time of incident. There can hardly be any

dispute that she was below 18 years of age. She was merely a child

at the time of recording of her evidence and there is no way that it

can even be argued that she was above 18 years of age. The learned

trial Judge has noted that she was a child. He asked some

preliminary questions to her. He was satisfied that the victim was

able to understand the questions and therefore, oath was

administered to her. She deposed that about two years prior to her

deposition, she was residing at Bhagubhai chawl. On the date of

incident she was playing outside her house. It was noon time. She

used to call the Appellant as ‘baba’. The Appellant told her that he

would give chocolate and biscuits. On that pretext, he took her to

his house. He gave her some biscuits. He sent her brother out of

the house. He locked the house from inside. Then he removed her

clothes. He also removed his clothes. She then deposed that, he laid

on her person. She suffered pain on her private part. Then he asked

the victim to go home. He fled away from there. She started crying.

She met her uncle on the road. She could not tell him anything.

The victim’s uncle took her to her house. She narrated the incident

to her mother. At that time, there was bleeding from the victim’s

private part. Her mother examined her. Her mother called her



Manisha                                                                       5/20
                          201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




father and told about the victim’s state. The victim’s father took her

to the hospital. This was the deposition of the victim.



          In the cross-examination, she stated that she and her family

were knowing the Appellant. She had narrated the incident to the

Police. There were certain statements in her deposition which were

not mentioned in her police statement. She had not stated before

the Police that the Appellant had asked her brother to go out of his

house and then the Appellant locked the victim in the house. The

victim’s mother had examined her and found bleeding in the

victim’s private part. Her mother then called her father and told

him about the bleeding and her father took her to the hospital.

These facts were not stated by her in her police statement.

However, it is important to note that the main incident of rape was

not an omission from her police statement. In her further cross-

examination, she stated that once she came out of room of the

Appellant, her siblings were not there. She herself unlatched the

door from inside and came out. She denied the suggestion that the

Appellant had not gone out. She denied the suggestion that while

playing she fell down on an iron rod and suffered injuries. She also

denied that the Appellant picked her up in his arms and asked her



Manisha                                                                         6/20
                         201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




to go home. She denied the suggestion that she was tutored by her

parents and therefore she was deposing falsely against the

Appellant.



          In the re-examination, the victim was asked to identify the

Appellant. She correctly identified the Appellant.



5.        PW-1-Mr. Sonu Kumar was the uncle of the victim. He had

lodged the F.I.R. PW-1 deposed that he was residing with his

brother, brother’s wife and the victim. His brother had two sons

and two daughters including the victim. They are residing at

Bagubhai chawl. In the year 2013, he was working in a company.

On 03/02/2013, PW-1 was in his room. He had night duty. PW-1’s

brother was on day duty. At around 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m., the

victim and her brother were playing outside the room. The

Appellant was a distant relative. The Appellant gave a biscuit to the

victim and took her to his room in the nearby chawl. The victim’s

brother told these facts to her mother. The victim’s brother told

that the Appellant had committed the objectionable act with the

victim in his house. He took them to the room of the Appellant. At

that time the victim was coming back crying. They brought her to



Manisha                                                                        7/20
                         201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




their room. There was bleeding from the victim’s private part.

Somebody called the ambulance. They took the victim to a

government hospital. The Doctor told them that they would have

to report the incident to the police. PW-1 then lodged the F.I.R.

and identified the Appellant in the Court. The F.I.R. is produced on

record at Exhibit-7.



          In the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that many people

resided at the place of his residence and there were various chawls

around his house. The distance between the victim’s chawl and the

Appellant’s chawl was about 5 to 7 minutes walking distance. There

were various rooms in between. These rooms are occupied by

various families. Many children were playing on the date of

incident at about 12:30 p.m. PW-1 himself was sleeping in his

house. The victim’s brother who narrated the incident was about 4

years of age at that time. He further deposed that though he was

sleeping, his sister-in-law i.e. the victim’s mother woke him up and

told him to search for the victim. He saw the victim coming back

towards their home. She was alone. PW-1 was a native of Bihar. He

could not read and write Gujarati. He had signed the report but he

did not know what was written in the report. He had not given any



Manisha                                                                        8/20
                         201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




documents showing age of the victim to the Police. The victim’s

mother had told him about the bleeding suffered by the victim. The

Appellant used to visit their house. He used to bring biscuits. In

further cross-examination of PW-1, he deposed that the Doctor had

advised them to lodge the report but he had not gone to the police

station. His brother had gone to the police station but PW-1 himself

signed the report at the police station. When PW-1’s brother had

lodged the report he was not with his brother. PW-1 had gone to

the police station at about 8:30 p.m. The F.I.R. itself shows that the

statement was read over to him in hindi language.



6.        PW-3-Kanchandevi was the mother of the victim. She

deposed that on 03/02/2013, in the afternoon, the victim and PW-

3’s younger son were playing outside the room. After sometime,

PW-3’s son came to her and told her that the Appellant had taken

the victim to his room and had committed the act of forcible sexual

intercourse. PW-3 then informed PW-1 who was sleeping in the

house. PW-1 then went to search for the victim. He saw the victim

coming back. PW-3 saw the bleeding on the victim’s private part.

PW-3 told these facts to PW-1 and requested him to call her

husband who came home. She informed this fact to the chawl



Manisha                                                                        9/20
                            201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




owner who called the ambulance. Then they took the victim to the

hospital. Police made inquiry with her in the hospital. PW-3

identified the Appellant in the Court. She deposed that the victim

was born in the year 2006 in the month of May but she could not

recollect the exact date.



           In the cross-examination, she had deposed that she had

given the Birth Certificate of the victim to the Police. She denied

the suggestion that the bleeding was because of menstruation. Her

husband came home at around 1:00 p.m. and then went to the

hospital at 2:00 p.m.



7.        PW-2-Mr. Bhagubhai Patel acted as a pancha of the spot

panchanama carried out in the room of the Appellant. They

observed one mattress, bed sheet and pillow stained with blood.

There were blood stains on the lungi. The spot panchanama was

conducted and is produced on record at Exhibit-10. All these

articles were seized. He identified the articles in the Court.



          In the cross-examination, he deposed that Police had come

to the house at around 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Appellant’s



Manisha                                                                          10/20
                        201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




chawl was about half kilometer away from his house. Panchanama

started at 6:00 p.m. and was over by 7:00 p.m. When he went to

the spot, the room was open. Nobody was there inside the room.

The victim’s father and uncle had shown the room which was a

single room.



8.        PW-4-Dr. Siddharat Rathod had conducted medical

examination of the Appellant and had formed an opinion that the

Appellant was capable of performing sexual act. It is mentioned at

Exhibit-15.



9.        PW-5-Dr. Zankita Shah was present when blood sample

and vaginal swab of the victim was collected by Dr. Shailesh. The

clothes on the person of the victim were also removed and nail

clippings and public hair were also collected. All these samples were

sealed. This was done on 03/02/2013 at around 4:10 p.m.



10.       PW-6-Dr. Shailesh Arlekar had examined the victim. On

03/02/2013, he deposed that the patient was a baby girl. Her age

was about 7 years. There was clinical proof of forceful vaginal

penetration with perineal tear. The injury certificate with his



Manisha                                                                      11/20
                          201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




endorsement is produced on record at Exhibit-17. The victim had

suffered 3rd degree perineal tear involving 6 cm., post vaginal wall

and perineal body upto 3 cm., of lower rectum 2 cm., long skin

deep laceration on both sides labia.          Perineal tear was repaired

under anesthesia. He collected the samples referred to by PW-5.

PW-6 issued the Certificate which is produced on record at Exhibit-

20. According to PW-6, 3rd degree perineal tear meant a tear that

involved vagina and extended upto patient’s rectum. Such injury

was possible if there was application of force of penetration.



           In the cross-examination, PW-6 stated that the victim’s

injury was possible if rod or any hard object was penetrated

forcefully. In further examination-in-chief, the medical papers were

brought on record at Exhibit-38 which included the story narrated

by the victim’s mother.



11.       PW-11-Dr. Dhanvijaya Prabhakar had received a letter

from the police on 03/02/2013 for examination of the Appellant.

On that day, the Appellant’s semen was not collected and he was

called on the next day. On 04/02/2013, PW-11 sent the samples of

pubic hair and nail clippings to the police station. Importantly, she



Manisha                                                                        12/20
                         201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




also sent the clothes of the Appellant in sealed condition. The

letter is produced on record at Exhibit-37. PW-11’s evidence is

important because the underwear of the Appellant shows presence

of the victim’s blood.



          In the cross-examination, PW-11 stated that she sent the

samples to her office and then her office forwarded that to the

police.



12.       PW-8-Mr. Ramji Solanki-Retired Police Officer was in-

charge at the Out Post of Moti Daman Police Station. On that day,

the in-charge of Costal Police Station handed over the investigation

of Crime No.6 of 2013 to this witness. PW-8 then went to the spot

and conducted spot panchanama. He seized the articles on the spot.

He recorded statements of the victim’s mother and other witnesses.

He arrested the Appellant. On 04/02/2013, he sent the Appellant

for medical examination. He produced the Appellant before the

Magistrate. He collected the medical certificate. After collecting the

necessary papers, he submitted the chargesheet against the

Appellant. On 12/03/2013, he received the F.S.L. Report. It is

produced on record at Exhibit-24. He filed the DNA Report at



Manisha                                                                       13/20
                           201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




Exhibit-26. He identified the Appellant in the Court.



             In cross-examination, PW-8 admitted that he had not

recorded the statements of the persons residing nearby. He was

present at the spot for about an hour. After 6:00 p.m., he reached

the government hospital. During his investigation, he had not

collected the birth certificate of the victim.



13.         PW-9-Mr. Chhunilal Solanki - Asstt. PSI, Nani Daman

Police Station, had received a message about the incident from

government hospital at about 2:40 p.m. on 03/02/2013. He went to

the hospital. He made the entry in the police station diary. He

recorded the report of the first informant-PW-1. He brought the

first informant to the Costal Police Station and registered the F.I.R.

Further investigation was transferred to a Senior Police Officer. He

conducted some part of the investigation after that. He recorded

statements of some witnesses. He collected samples from the

hospital.



          In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not collect

the birth certificate of the victim and that he had not got her age



Manisha                                                                         14/20
                          201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




determination test conducted by the doctor.



14.       PW-10-Mr. Dinesh Vaja - PI had recorded the victim’s

statement on 18/10/2013. He denied the suggestion that the victim

had not narrated the statement and but her mother had told the

facts which were reduced into writing. He had not videographed

the recording of the victim’s statement.



15.       This in short is the ocular evidence led by this Prosecution.

The Prosecution has also filed the CA Report on record at Exhibit-

24. In addition, the Prosecution submitted the DNA Analysis

Report. The CA Report shows that there was blood of ‘A’ Group on

the clothes of the Appellant and the victim as well as on the

bedsheet and other articles. Importantly, the DNA Report mentions

that stains of the victim's blood was found on the underwear of the

Appellant.



16.       Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the

Prosecution has not proved that the victim was a minor girl at the

time of incident. There is a serious doubt raised as to how the F.I.R.

was lodged and whether it was lodged by PW-1 or his brother. The



Manisha                                                                        15/20
                         201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




victim’s father i.e. PW-1’s brother was not examined. Nobody from

the vicinity was examined. The Prosecution’s case was not true. The

Appellant was implicated falsely. It was improbable that the

Appellant would take the victim and her brother to his house and

then leave the victim’s brother to go home to narrate the incident

to his family. The Investigating Agency and the Medical Officers

had not taken sufficient precautions while collecting samples and

therefore, there is scope to believe that the samples were not

collected properly and there was no linking evidence showing that

the samples were related to the Appellant and no one else. She

further submitted that the seizure of the underwear of the

Appellant is also doubtful.



17.       The learned S.P.P. on the other hand submitted that there is

no reason to disbelieve the truthful version given by the victim

herself. Her ocular evidence is supported by the medical evidence.

She had suffered a serious injury for which she had to undergo

surgery under anesthesia. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the

incident had taken place. The victim would not leave the real

culprit out and would blame the Appellant falsely. He further

submitted that the Appellant has not brought anything on record as



Manisha                                                                       16/20
                         201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




to why the victim or her family would implicate him falsely. The

CA Report and in particularly, the DNA Report were most

incriminating. No explanation is offered by the Appellant in that

behalf.



18.       We have considered these submissions. As far as the age of

the victim is concerned, the victim was a small child aged about 7

years at the time of incident and aged about 9 years at the time of

recording of her deposition. It is not even a borderline case where

it could be argued that she was more than 18 years of age or

around 18 years of age. Therefore, considering her very young age

of 7 years, though the Birth Certificate is not produced on record

there is no reason to disbelieve the doctors who have recorded her

age as 7 years and even the Session Judge who has recorded her age

as 9 years.



19.       Moreover, the mother of the victim has stated that victim

was 7 years of age at the time of the incident and there is no cross-

examination on that particular aspect. Even it is not the case of the

Appellant himself that the victim was not 7 years old at the time of

the incident.



Manisha                                                                       17/20
                         201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




20.       As far as the main incident is concerned, it is narrated in

sufficient details by the victim herself. The Appellant was a distant

relative and therefore, trusting him she had accompanied him to his

house. She had thereafter described the incident of forcible sexual

intercourse. Some part of her description is corroborated by her

younger brother who had gone to the house of the Appellant but he

was driven out by the Appellant. The subsequent events of her

returning home and her uncle meeting her on the way are also

corroborated by the evidence of the victim herself as well as from

the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3. The immediate events after she

returned home show that she was bleeding from her private part.

She was immediately taken to the hospital. The Medical Officers

examined her and treated her. Within a short time the F.I.R. was

lodged. There was no time to concoct a false story to implicate the

Appellant falsely. During spot panchanama various articles

including the clothes of the Appellant were seized from the spot

which show presence of blood of ‘A’ group which was the blood

group of the victim. The most incriminating CA Report is regarding

DNA Analysis which show presence of the victim’s blood on the

underwear of the Appellant. That underwear was seized by a



Manisha                                                                       18/20
                         201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




Medical Officer in the hospital. There is no reason to disbelieve the

evidence of the Medical Officer. Finding of the victim’s blood on

the Appellant’s underwear is a very strong corroborative piece of

evidence supporting the victim’s deposition and the prosecution’s

case.



21.       The victim had infact suffered a very serious injury, that

tear was quite big which required surgery under anesthesia. A small

girl of tender age had to go through all this trauma. She had clearly

named the Appellant. The learned trial Judge rightly considered all

these aspects in convicting and sentencing the Appellant.

Considering the injuries suffered by the victim, there is no scope

even to reduce the sentence. The Appellant is in custody since

February, 2013. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion

that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The learned trial Judge has given good reasons in convicting and

sentencing the Appellant. We see no reason to interfere with the

impugned Judgment and Order. For the reasons mentioned herein

above, we proceed to pass the following order.




Manisha                                                                       19/20
                              201-APEAL-325-2024 WITH IA-973-2024 WITH IA-1698-2025.doc




                              ORDER

          (i)           Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2024 is dismissed.



          (ii)          Copy of this Order be sent to the Appellant, who

          is in jail.



          (ii)          In view of dismissal of the Appeal, the connected

          Interim Application Nos.973 of 2024 and 1698 of 2025, are

          also dismissed




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                            (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)




Manisha                                                                            20/20