Bombay High Court
Ravi Shyamlal PurohitversusThe State of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The revision application is allowed and the applicant is discharged from the criminal case.
Summary
The applicant, Ravi Shyamlal Purohit, sought discharge from a criminal case alleging he sexually assaulted and impregnated the victim, who is his sister. The prosecution argued the allegations were true, while the applicant contended he was falsely implicated, presenting a DNA report showing the child's DNA did not match his and noting the victim's statements implicating another accused who later married her. The Sessions Court had rejected the applicant's discharge application, prompting a revision petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the DNA evidence, the victim's supplementary statement, and the settlement between the victim and the other accused, concluding that the allegations against the applicant were unfounded. It held that proceeding with the trial would constitute an abuse of the process of law and therefore allowed the revision, discharging the applicant from the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sessions Court erred in rejecting the applicant's discharge application in view of DNA evidence and the victim's statements.
- Whether continuing the trial against the applicant would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
- Whether the applicant should be discharged from the criminal case.
Subjects
- sexual assault
- false implication
- DNA evidence
- discharge application
- criminal revision
- abuse of process
- settlement out of court
- marriage
Judgment
29-REVN-172-2025 (Corrected).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 172 OF 2025
Ravi Shyamlal Purohit … Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Ms. Mallika Sharma a/w. Ms. Asha Joshi, Advocate for Applicant.
Digitally signed
SONALI by SONALI
SATISH KILAJE
SATISH Date:
2026.08.21
KILAJE 18:32:46
+0530
Mr. S.R.Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Roshni Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present in person.
Mr. Shahid Khan, PSI, Dahisar Police Station, present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 tendered affidavit
in reply. It is taken on record.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to the impugned order dated
12.03.2025 passed by the learned Session Court, Dindoshi, whereby the
learned Special Court has rejected the discharge application of the
applicant.
3. It is prosecution’s case that the applicant sexually assaulted the
victim and impregnated her. The applicant is the real brother of the
victim.
This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 20th August, 2026.
Page 1 of 3
29-REVN-172-2025 (Corrected).doc
S.S.Kilaje
4. It is contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim had lover
affair with the accused No.2 and she has performed marriage with him.
The DNA report shows that the DNA of the child does not match with the
DNA of the applicant. In the 164 statement, the victim has not stated
about the alleged sexual assault done by the applicant. But these facts are
not considered by the learned Sessions Court and requested to allow the
application.
5. It is contention of learned APP that learned Sessions Court has
passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested
to reject the application.
6. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 that
the matter is settled out of Court. Respondent No.2 has no objection to
allow the application and she has performed marriage with the accused
No.2.
7. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused impugned order and
documents produced on record. The allegations against the applicant are
that he sexually assaulted the victim and impregnated her. In
supplementary statement, the victim has not stated anything against the
applicant and has stated that the said sexual assault was done by the
accused No.2. The DNA report of the child does not match with the
This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 20th August, 2026.
Page 2 of 3
29-REVN-172-2025 (Corrected).doc
S.S.Kilaje
applicant. The victim has performed marriage with the accused No.2. The
allegations against the applicant appears to be false as DNA of the child
delivered by the victim does not matches with the DNA of the applicant.
But these facts are not considered by the learned Sessions Court. If trial is
permitted to continue against the applicant, it would amount to abuse of
process of law and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The applicant is discharged from Special Case No. 62 of
2022 arising out of FIR No. 1225 of 2021 registered at
Dahisar Police Station.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of order dated 20th August, 2026.
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…