JAGDISH RAMBHAU BHOGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim.

(2.) The applicant who is transgender has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 366 read with Sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna, in Special Case (Child) No.28 of 2020, vide order dtd. 18/5/2023.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the role attributed to the applicant has not been proved; however, the erroneous findings have been recorded against him that he handed over the custody of the kidnapped girl from accused No.1 to accused No.4. The victim was in advanced age and was able to understand the worldly affairs. There were no antecedents to the discredit of the applicant. He was on bail throughout the trial. The ingredients of Sec. 366 of the Indian Penal Code have not been proved against him. Considering the observations recorded against him, he had barely handed over the child in the custody of accused No.4 through accused No.1, it did not constitute the offence as allegedly proven against him. He was never the part of the crime. He was used by other co-accused. Considering the short term sentence, it may be suspended till conclusion of the appeal.