USMAN ISMAIL SIDIQUI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Application is for suspension of sentence and enlargement of the Appellant on bail in connection with judgment and order dtd. 7/12/2024 passed in Special Case No.226 of 2019, whereby the Appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 354(a) read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Ss. 8, 10, and 12 of the Prevention of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment five years imprisonment with fine.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in the instant case the victim made similar allegations against Accused Nos.1 and 2. The Trial Court has not found the accusations made against the Accused No.2 to be convincing and hence acquitted the accused. It is her submission that having regard to the similarity of the allegations made by the victim, it will be difficult to maintain conviction against the Appellant. It is further argued by relying upon the evidence on record that the victim has accepted in her cross-examination that her liberties were curtailed which were available for her in her grandparents' place. It is her submission that owing to the said grudge the possibility of Appellant being falsely implicated in this case cannot be ruled out. She claims that Appellant has no criminal history against him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and learned APP opposed the appeal by contending that the victim is minor and she was subjected to sexual harassment of by the accused persons. It is their submission that merely because the co-accused has been enlarged on bail, there would be no reason not to accept the evidence of the victim against present Appellant. It is also argued that there is no reason or justification for the victim to make false allegation against the present Appellant.