Bombay High Court
haroon hamza rashidversusthe state of maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The revision court quashed the Sessions Court order and discharged the applicant due to insufficient evidence and undue delay.
Summary
The applicant, a military officer, sought discharge from charges of sexual assault under IPC sections 376 and 354-A, arguing that the complaint was filed three years after the alleged incident and that he was posted elsewhere at the time. The prosecution presented WhatsApp chats indicating a friendship between the parties and argued that the delay was explained in the charge-sheet. The Sessions Judge had rejected the discharge application, but the High Court noted the significant delay, lack of substantive evidence linking the applicant to the alleged assault, and the applicant's posting away from the venue. Finding the evidence insufficient and the delay prejudicial, the Court quashed the Sessions Court order and discharged the applicant. The revision application was allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the three-year delay in lodging the complaint warrants dismissal of the charges.
- Whether the evidence on record sufficiently establishes the applicant's participation in the alleged sexual assault.
- Whether proceeding to trial would constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 354-A, 376(2)(e), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n)
Subjects
- Criminal law
- Sexual assault
- Delay in prosecution
- Discharge
- Revision
- Abuse of process
- IPC sections 376
- IPC section 354-A
Judgment
3-REVN-595-2024 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 595 OF 2024
Haroon Hamza Rashid … Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
SONALI by
Digitally signed
SONALI
SATISH KILAJE
Mr. Anurag P. Ghah, Advocate for Applicant.
SATISH Date:
2026.05.06
KILAJE 12:54:56
+0700
Mr. M.G.Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Divya Parab a/w. Mr. Rajesh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
WPSI – Phate, Khadki Police Station, Pune City, present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 30th APRIL, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this Revision Application is the order passed by
the learned Sessions Court, Pune in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2020 whereby
the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge application of the
applicant.
2. It is prosecution’s case that the first informant worked as a
Ward Assistant in the Military Hospital, Range Hills, Khadki, Pune whereas
the applicant worked as a Master of another ward in the same hospital.
Informant is the deaf and mute since birth. It is alleged that in the month
of January-2015, the applicant sexually assaulted the informant by taking
her to the washroom of the hospital. The applicant and co-accused
Page 1 of 3
3-REVN-595-2024 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
threatened the applicant not to disclose the said act to anyone. It is
alleged that thereafter, the co-accused also sexually assaulted the first
informant by threatening her.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
offence is registered three years after the incident. At the time of alleged
incident, the applicant was serving at Manipur, Assam. He has no concern
with the said incident. No evidence is produced on record to show the
involvement of the applicant. But this fact is not considered by the learned
Sessions Judge and requested to allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that there are whats-app chats produced on record to
show that there was friendship between the applicant and victim. After
the sexual assault on the victim, she tried to confide in her co-worker but
due to her inability to speak and hear, she could not be understood. The
charge-sheet has recorded reasons for delay. To prove the innocence of the
applicant, trial is required and requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and
impugned order. There is three years delay in lodging the complaint. The
documents produced on record shows that in the month of January, the
applicant was serving at Manipur. The informant alleges that during that
period the applicant sexually assaulted her. It creates doubt about the
Page 2 of 3
3-REVN-595-2024 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
alleged incident. As observed earlier, there is three years delay in lodging
the complaint and there is no sufficient evidence produced on record
against the applicant. The applicant is a solider serving in the military. If
trial is continued, it will be an abuse of process of law and I pass following
order:
ORDER
(i) Impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, is quashed and set
aside.
(ii) The applicant is discharged, for the offence punishable
under Sections 376(2)(e), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 354-A
r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”)
6. Revision Application is allowed and disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…