SACHIN SURESH PATOLE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for suspension of sentence and releasing the applicant/accused on bail during pendency of the appeal filed by him. The applicant/accused is convicted of the offences punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for the sake of brevity). For the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/-. No separate sentence was awarded to him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/accused. She argued that the applicant/accused has already undergone 1/4th sentence imposed on him. He has no criminal antecedents. The learned Counsel further argued that First Informant/mother, so also the alleged victim of the crime in question have turned hostile to the prosecution. Medical evidence adduced by the prosecution is not supporting and corroborating the case fully. The doctors examined by the prosecution has stated that injury on the alleged victim was superficial and simple. They had not given their independent opinion. Their opinion is based on history. It is further argued that internal examination of the victim was not conducted. With this, it is submitted that the applicant/accused is entitled for bail.

(3.) The learned APP opposed the application by drawing my attention to evidence of First Informant/PW-1/Vidya as well as that of the victim child who is examined as PW-2 and contended that by cross examining both these witnesses, the prosecution has brought on record the fact that the applicant/accused was the perpetrator of the crime in question.