PRAKASH @ NANA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application has been filed by the applicant, who is accused No.1, seeking stay to the conviction awarded to him on 28th June, 2018 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, District Nandurbar in Sessions Case No.08/2016, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, POCSO Act). The applicant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.6,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. He has filed the criminal appeal which has been admitted and this court, by order dated 25th September, 2018, has suspended the said sentence and released him on bail.

(2.) The applicant contends that after he was convicted by the learned trial judge, he has been suspended from his service. He is serving as Junior Technician with Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (for short, MSEDCL). His father was basically serving with MSEDCL, at Shahada and had opted voluntary retirement and then the applicant came to be appointed on compassionate ground under the scheme in the MSEDCL in 2005. After five years of his appointment, he came to be promoted to the post of Junior Technician. After registration of the crime and as he was in police custody, he was suspended. Charge sheet has been served on him on 29.7.2015, which was replied by him on 18.9.2015. Thereafter, show cause notice has been issued on 1.2.2016, calling upon him to submit an explanation to the fact that the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry has arrived at a conclusion that the charges Nos.1, 2 and 4 have been proved against him. Thereafter, he was served with a final order on 23.3.2016. Fine was imposed upon him to the tune of Rs.51,000/- and it was deducted from his monthly salary. After the conviction, once again he has been issued with a show cause notice on 7.8.2018 by his office with proposed punishment of dismissal from service. He has replied to the same on 17.8.2018, which could not reach to the office within time as he had given that reply from jail. By order dated 30.8.2018, he has been dismissed from service. Under these peculiar facts and circumstances, the criminal application is presented seeking stay to the conviction.

(3.) It has been contended that perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as impugned judgment and order of the trial court would show that too technical approach has been adopted and there is miscarriage of justice. The learned Trial Court failed to consider that the applicant has been falsely implicated. There were vital admissions given by the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was demanding money to the applicant. But when he refused, then she filed the report against the applicant on the say of certain persons from her community. The defence taken by the applicant has not been considered by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge further failed to consider that the evidence of PW 5 Dr. Girish Bhagwan Chaudhary was not reliable and seems to be a brought-up witness as he has admitted that he had not even asked the name of the victim. After putting ten years' of unblemished service, due to the said unfortunate incident and registration of the alleged crime, the applicant is jobless. He is still 18 years of service left with him. He has a large family to support and, therefore, the conviction needs to be stayed. Alternatively, a prayer has been made to expedite hearing and placing the matter itself for final hearing since paper book in the matter is ready.