ABDULLA AINULHAQ ANSARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for suspension of sentence, pending the appeal, wherein the applicant has been convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai as under;

(2.) Heard Mr. Vagal, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of rape as well as charge under section 5 (n) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (for short 'POCSO' Act'). According to the learned Counsel, the applicant who is father of the victim has been falsely implicated by the victim as the applicant used to beat her due to her habits of stealing laptop and mobile phones.

(3.) The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the impugned judgment wherein the learned Special Judge has observed that though there are contradictions, omissions and improvements on record, the same are not material. Undoubtedly, the victim was minor at the time of the incident and the applicant is her real father. When asked, learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out as to whether a presumption under section 29 of the POCSO Act has been rebutted. However, learned Counsel tried to impress upon me that in her cross-examination, the victim had admitted that when she met her father on the last date at the Rehabilitation Home, she said, while crying, to her father to forgive her as she committed a mistake. It is not clear in what context the victim had asked her father to forgive her. It can be her mistake of committing theft of mobile and laptops or it can be the alleged act of molestation of the victim by the applicant.