ATUL AAYRING BHOSALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Shri RB Temak for applicant-appellant and Shri PK Lakhotiya, learned APP for Respondent-State.

(2.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant-appellant that the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence properly and the conviction, that has been awarded to the present appellant in Special Case No. 15/2019, for the offences punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, is liable to be reviewed by this Court in appeal. The appeal has been admitted and the appellant, who was on bail throughout the trial, deserves to be released on bail, even after conviction while his appeal is pending before this Court. The sentence that has been awarded against the appellant-applicant is a short-term sentence. In all, six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Out of them, the victim girl is the only eye-witness, who is aged 17 years. The relationship between the parties is also required to be considered. Wife of the applicant is sister of the victim. There is a property dispute going on. The wife of the present appellant is demanding share in the land and the victim, her mother and brother are not willing to partition the land. Therefore, possibility of false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Though mother and brother of the victim have been examined by the prosecution, they are not the eye-witnesses and, therefore, taking into consideration the allegations made and the evidence led, the appellant-applicant has every hope of success in the appeal. The learned Advocate for the applicant therefore, prayed for releasing the applicant on bail by suspending the substantive sentence.

(3.) Per contra, leaned APP strongly opposed the application and out-rightly submitted that, since the appellant has not deposited the fine amount, he is not entitled to be released on bail and on that count only, this Court had adjourned the matter on earlier occasions. The learned APP further submitted that the trial court has relied on the testimony of the victim as it had inspired confidence. The cross-examination of the victim has not shaken her examination-in-chief. In fact, she has denied the suggestion that there is any property dispute between her family and the wife of the present appellant. It appears that the present applicant had an ill-eye on the victim and, therefore, had called her on the day of the incident and suggested that she should run with him and he would perform marriage with her. There was no reason to disbelieve the victim and after proper appreciation of the evidence, when the conviction has been awarded, unnecessarily leniency should not be shown against the present appellant.