Samsun Savra vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 July, 2025

0
5


Bombay High Court

Samsun Savra vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 July, 2025

Author: Madhav J. Jamdar

Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar

2025:BHC-AS:27642                                                   13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.368 OF 2022

                    Samsun Savra                                                ...Appellant
                          Versus
                    State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                 ...Respondents


                    Mr. M. G. Shukla, for the Appellant.
                    Ms. S. D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State.
                    Mr. Akshay Dingale, for Respondent No.2.



                                               CORAM:     MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                               DATED :    4th JULY 2025
                    JUDGMENT.:


                    1.        Heard Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Ms.

                    Shinde, learned APP for the Respondent-State and Mr. Dingale,

                    learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of Respondent

                    No.2.



                    2.        The challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the Judgment

                    and Order dated 22nd August, 2019 passed by the learned

                    Designated Court, under Protection of Children from Sexual

                    Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act") in POCSO Case No.250 of 2018.

                    By the impugned Judgment and Order the learned Trial Court




                                                     Page 1 of 21
                    Vaibhav

                ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                          ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                               13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




 convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section

 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and sentenced him

 to suffer R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer S.I. for

 7 days.



 3.        Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant

 submitted that, except the testimony of the victim there is no other

 evidence against the Appellant. He submits that, the testimony of

 the victim is not reliable. Medical evidence is not supporting the

 prosecution case. The DNA profile do not support the prosecution

 case. He submitted that charge framed against the Appellant is not

 proper. Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel submitted that, the charge is

 framed under Section 376(2) of IPC, however as Section 376(2) is

 in several parts being Section 376(a) to Section 376(n) specific

 provisions should have been mentioned. He submits that therefore

 the Appellant-Accused is not in a position to answer such a faulty

 and vague charge. He also submits that even the other charge is

 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, when Section 6 is concerning

 punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and

 penetrative sexual assault is defined in Section 5. He states that

 Section 5 is also in several parts being Section 5(a) to Section 5(u).




                               Page 2 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                    ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                 13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




 He therefore submits that, vague charge is framed and therefore

 the entire trial has vitiated as the Appellant was required to answer

 such a vague charge.



 4.        Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel points out the FIR at (Exhibit-9)

 as well as the statement recorded of the victim under Section 164

 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") which is at

 (Exhibit-10) and submits that the victim in her statement recorded

 under Section 164 of CrPC has only mentioned that, one boy has

 sexually assaulted the victim and in the said statement answer to

 the question no.16, she states that, name of said boy was Samshan

 or something like the same. He points out FIR dated 18 th February,

 2018, where the mother of the victim i.e. PW1 has stated the name

 of persons who were staying in the said building are Kismat,

 Shamim, Samsher, Samsun Tarun Savra, his brother-in-law and his

 family. Thus, he submits that the identity of the person who has

 committed sexual assault is not established. He submitted that the

 evidence on record do not conclusively prove the guilt of the

 Appellant and therefore the Appellant be granted benefit of doubt.




                                 Page 3 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                      ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




 5.        On the other hand, Ms. Shinde, learned APP for the State of

 Maharashtra submitted that the evidence of victim i.e. PW2 is

 reliable and the involvement of the Appellant is completely

 established. She submitted that as far as the contention that

 medical evidence do not support the prosecution case, as per the

 settled legal position, even if, medical evidence do not support the

 prosecution case then also on the basis of the testimony of the

 victim and the other material on record the prosecution case can

 be established. Apart from this contention, learned APP submits

 that, in this particular case except some part of the medical

 evidence other evidence supports the prosecution case. She

 submits that, the prosecution evidence laid by the prosecution is

 reliable and therefore the Appellant has been rightly convicted. As

 far as the contention that, the charge is vague and therefore the

 Appellant could not answer such a vague charge, she submits that,

 the said contention is raised for the first time, at the time of

 hearing the Appeal. She submitted that said contention should

 have been raised before the learned Trial Court. She therefore

 submitted that the said contention be not taken into consideration.

 She therefore submitted that the Criminal Appeal be dismissed.




                                Page 4 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                     ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                               13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




 6.        Mr. Dingale, learned Counsel appointed to represent the

 interest of Respondent No.2 submitted that, the evidence on record

 clearly establishes the involvement of the Appellant in the crime.

 The evidence of the victim and the evidence of PW1-mother of the

 victim as also evidence of PW3 - Dr. Prashant Waghmare, clearly

 establishes the involvement of the Appellant in the serious crime.

 He submits that the Crime is very serious, where the victim of 15

 years was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault and

 therefore no interference in the impugned Judgment and Order of

 conviction and sentence is warranted. He submitted that, as the

 evidence on record show that samples were not properly collected

 and therefore no reliance can be placed on the fact that DNA

 sample has not matched with that of the Appellant and it is not

 proved that the Appellant is the biological father of the fetus. He

 submitted that, in the statement recorded under Section 313 of

 CrPC the Appellant has not given any explanation. He therefore

 submitted that the Criminal Appeal be dismissed.



 7.        The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph No.2 of the

 impugned Judgment and Order which reads as under:-




                               Page 5 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                    ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                  13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




       "2. Facts giving rise to prosecution case are as under-

            Complainant is a mother of the victim. She is doing
       labour work on construction site. She was residing in labour
       colony. She is residing on 8th floor. She has four daughters.
       Victim is her elder daughter. Victim was working with her
       mother and helping her for household work. On 24th
       December 2017 complainant along with her three younger
       daughters went to her native place at Ballah Pandol, Dist.
       Madhubani Bihar State. However victim stayed on address
       at Mumbai in the above building. On 6.1.2018 when she
       returned from native place complainant found that victim is
       suffering from vomiting. So she asked therefore
       complainant took her towards doctor. Victim refused to go
       with her and therefore complainant suspected about her
       behavior. She brought pregnancy kit from medical store and
       given to the victim. She found that victim is pregnant and
       therefore she has taken her in confidence and made inquiry
       wherein she came to know the fact that accused who was
       residing in the said building given make up kit and
       luxurious article and forcibly committed rape upon her
       repeatedly by going to her house. Victim was minor 15
       years old and accused has taken disadvantage of her
       minority and absence of complainant in the house at the
       relevant period. Therefore, complainant along with her
       daughter went to police station and filed the complaint
       against accused. Crime was registered vide C.R.No.44/2018
       for the offence punishable u/s. 376 of IPC r/w sections 4, 8
       and 9 of POCSO Act. Accused is charge-sheeted before the
       court. After due investigation both accused were charge-
       sheeted before the court."

 8.        Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set

 out the chart which has been tendered by Ms. Shinde, learned APP.

 In the said chart important details including that of evidence on

 record is mentioned. The said chart is as under:-




                                  Page 6 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                       ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                    13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




    Page 163              Judgment
    22/08/2019            Conviction -U/s 376(2) 10 years + fine 1000/-
                          i/d. 7 days
    Exh.3                 Charge
    Page 21               u/s. 376(2) of IPC u/s 6 of POCSO
    PW 1                  Anjari Khatoon
    Pg. 27                Complainant
                          (mohter of Victim)
                          Victim - 15 years Age
    Exh. 9                F.I.R. dated 18/02/2018
    Page 35               Complainant came to know about pregnancy
                          of victim
                          -Victim told about the incident
    22/02/2018            -MTP
    page 39               Statement of Victim
                          u/s 164 of Cr.P.C.
    PW 2                  -Victim/minor
    Page No.43            -Incident
                          -Scared/threatened
                          -Repeated Offence
                          -MTP
                          -identified Accused
    PW 3                  Dr. Prashant Waghmare
    Pg.53                 Examined victim
    Exh. 15               -History given by victim
    Page 62               -Aberration on victim
                          -opinion - 8 weeks 4 days pregnancy
    Exh. 16               -Age 16 to 17 years
    Page.69
    Page 66               -Hymen
                          Multiple old scars
                          -Aslo Examined Accused.
    PW 4                  Vinayak Kamble
    Page 75               Panch -Spot Panchnama
    Exh.21                -Spot Panchnama
    Page No.79




                                    Page 7 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                         ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                    13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




      PW 5          Pushpa Nathwale
      Exh. 28,29    Assistant C. A.
      Page No.95 to -DNA Sample
      98            Not supporting
                    -POC and placenta matching with victim but
                    not with Accused.
      PW No.6             Amol Aughade
      Page No.100         (Police Constable)
                          Found accused near spot
      PW7                 Lavesh Pulekar
      Page No.104         Police Constable
                          Carrier of samplers to C.A.
      PW 8                Maruti Dalvi
      Page No.107         Panch - Production Panchnama
      Exh. 33             Medical Kit
      Page No.110         Panchnama
      PW 9                Sanjay Thakur, API.
      Page No.112         Investigating Officer
      PW 10               Dr. Rajshri Tayshetty
      Page No.136         Examined Victim
      Exh.15              -Medical Report
      Page No.62          -8 weeks and 4 days pregnancy
      PW 11               Vishwajit Dattaram Nakashe
      Page No.149

 9.        As far as the contention that proper charge has not been

 framed and therefore the Appellant could not answer the charge

 effectively, it is necessary to set out the relevant portion of the

 charge which reads as under:-


                                    "C H A R G E
                 I, SMT M. A. BARALIYA, Designated Judge for the
           Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
           for Greater Bombay do hereby charge you accused:




                                    Page 8 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                         ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                   13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




                  Samsun Tarun Savra, Age, 32 years as follows:
           Firstly:    That you accused in between 24.12.17 to
           06.01.18 at the residential place 5 th floor, Shivjicharan,
           H. Building, Labour colony, near J building, J. R. Boricha
           marg, Satrasta, Mumbai, repeatedly rapped victim girl
           Rabina Khatoon 15 yrs old against her will and thereby
           committed offence punishable U/sec. 376(2) of IPC
           within my cognizance.
           Secondly:     That you accused during the above
           mentioned period and place repeatedly established pino
           vaginal sex with Rubia Khatoon 15 yrs old and
           impregnate her and thereby committed offence of
           Aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable U/sec.
           6 of POCSO Act, within my cognizance.
           And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on
           the aforesaid charges."

 10.       For appreciating the contention of Mr. Shukla, learned

 Counsel appearing for the Appellant Section 376(2) is reproduced

 herein below:-


           "Section 376(2) :Whoever,--
              (a) being a police officer, commits rape--
                  (i) within the limits of the police station to which
                  such police officer is appointed; or
                  (ii) in the premises of any station house; or
                  (iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or
                  in the custody of a police officer subordinate to
                  such police officer; or
             (b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman
             in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a
             public servant subordinate to such public servant; or




                                   Page 9 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                        ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                 13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




             (c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in
             an area by the Central or a State Government
             commits rape in such area; or
             (d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail,
             remand home or other place of custody established by
             or under any law for the time being in force or of a
             women's or children's institution, commits rape on
             any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or
             institution; or
             (e) being on the management or on the staff of a
             hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital;
             or
             (f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a
             person in a position of trust or authority towards the
             woman, commits rape on such woman; or
             (g) commits rape during communal or sectarian
             violence; or
             (h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be
             pregnant; or
             (j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving
             consent; or
             (k) being in a position of control or dominance over a
             woman, commits rape on such woman; or
             (l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or
             physical disability; or
             (m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily
             harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a
             woman; or
             (n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman,
             shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
             term which shall not be less than ten years, but which
             may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean
             imprisonment for the remainder of that person's
             natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
              Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section--




                                Page 10 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                      ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                   13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




                  (a) "armed forces" means the naval, military and air
                  forces and includes any member of the Armed
                  Forces constituted under any law for the time being
                  in force, including the paramilitary forces and any
                  auxiliary forces that are under the control of the
                  Central Government or the State Government;
                  (b) "hospital" means the precincts of the hospital
                  and includes the precincts of any institution for the
                  reception and treatment of persons during
                  convalescence or of persons requiring medical
                  attention or rehabilitation;
                  (c) "police officer" shall have the same meaning as
                  assigned to the expression "police" under the Police
                  Act, 1861 (5 of 1861);
                  (d) "women's or children's institution" means an
                  institution, whether called an orphanage or a home
                  for neglected women or children or a widow's
                  home or an institution called by any other name,
                  which is established and maintained for the
                  reception and care of women or children."
                                                       (Emphasis added)

 11.       A perusal of Section 376(2) clearly shows that the Sub-

 Sections of the same namely (a) to (n) are applicable to persons

 belonging to different classes and various different situations.

 Thus, Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel is right in contending that

 charge framed under Section 376(2) of IPC is vague.



 12.       The second charge mentions that the Appellant has

 committed offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault

 punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Section 5 of the




                                  Page 11 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                        ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                   13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




 POCSO Act is concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault

 and the same is reproduced hereunder:


            "(a) Whoever, being a police officer, commits
            penetrative sexual assault on a child --
               (i) within the limits of the police station or premises
               at which he is appointed; or
                (ii) in the premises of any station house, whether or
                not situated in the police station, to which he is
                appointed; or
                (iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or
                (iv) where he is known as, or identified as, a police
                officer; or
                (b) whoever being a member of the armed forces or
                security forces commits penetrative sexual assault
                on a child--
                (i) within the limits of the area to which the person
                is deployed; or
                (ii) in any areas under the command of the forces or
                armed forces; or
                (iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or
                (iv) where the said person is known or identified as
                a member of the security or armed forces; or
            (c) whoever being a public servant commits penetrative
            sexual assault on a child; or
            (d) whoever being on the management or on the staff
            of a jail, remand home, protection home, observation
            home, or other place of custody or care and protection
            established by or under any law for the time being in
            force, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child,
            being inmate of such jail, remand home, protection
            home, observation home, or other place of custody or
            care and protection; or




                                  Page 12 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                        ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                  13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




            (e) whoever being on the management or staff of a
            hospital, whether Government or private, commits
            penetrative sexual assault on a child in that hospital; or
            (f) whoever being on the management or staff of an
            educational institution or religious institution, commits
            penetrative sexual assault on a child in that institution;
            or
            (g) whoever commits gang penetrative sexual assault
            on a child.
            Explanation.-- When a child is subjected to sexual
            assault by one or more persons of a group in
            furtherance of their common intention, each of such
            persons shall be deemed to have committed gang
            penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of this
            clause and each of such person shall be liable for that
            act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone;
            or
            (h) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a
            child using deadly weapons, fire, heated substance or
            corrosive substance; or
            (i) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault causing
            grievous hurt or causing bodily harm and injury or
            injury to the sexual organs of the child; or
            (j) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a
            child, which--
                (i) physically incapacitates the child or causes the
                child to become mentally ill as defined under clause
                (l) of section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14
                of 1987) or causes impairment of any kind so as to
                render the child unable to perform regular tasks,
                temporarily or permanently;
                (ii) in the case of female child, makes the child
                pregnant as a consequence of sexual assault;
                (iii)   inflicts   the    child   with    Human
                Immunodeficiency Virus or any other life
                threatening disease or Infection which may either
                temporarily or permanently impair the child by



                                 Page 13 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                       ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                  13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




                rendering him physically incapacitated, or mentally
                ill to perform regular tasks;
                2[(iv) causes death of the child; or]
            (k) whoever, taking advantage of a child's mental or
            physical disability, commits penetrative sexual assault
            on the child; or
            (l) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the
            child more than once or repeatedly; or
            (m) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a
            child below twelve years; or
            (n) whoever being a relative of the child through blood
            or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster
            care or having a domestic relationship with a parent of
            the child or who is living in the same or shared
            household with the child, commits penetrative sexual
            assault on such child; or
            (o) whoever being, in the ownership, or management,
            or staff, of any institution providing services to the
            child, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child;
            or
            (p) whoever being in a position of trust or authority of
            a child commits penetrative sexual assault on the child
            in an institution or home of the child or anywhere else;
            or
            (q) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a
            child knowing the child is pregnant; or
            (r) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a
            child and attempts to murder the child; or
            (s) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a
            child in the course of 3[communal or sectarian violence
            or during any natural calamity or in similar situations];
            or
            (t) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a
            child and who has been previously convicted of having
            committed any offence under this Act or any sexual




                                 Page 14 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                       ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                    13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




            offence punishable under any other law for the time
            being in force; or
            (u) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a
            child and makes the child to strip or parade naked in
            public, is said to commit aggravated penetrative sexual
            assault."
                                                        (Emphasis added)

 13.       Thus, it is clear that, Section 5 defines aggravated

 penetrative sexual assault in various circumstances, where police

 officer commits penetrative sexual assault, member of the police

 officer, member of the armed forces or security force, public

 servant commits penetrative sexual assault, a person in the

 management or on the staff of a jail, remand home, protection

 home,       observation       home,   committed      sexual     assault      being

 management or staff of hospital whether government or private

 staff of an education institution or religious institution, commission

 of offence by one or more persons of group in furtherance of

 common intention etc.. It is clear that, perusal of Section 5 clearly

 shows that various different categories are specified.



 14.       Thus, there is substance in the contention raised by Mr.

 Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that, charge is

 not properly framed and therefore the Appellant is not in a




                                   Page 15 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                         ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




 position to answer the same effectively. There is some substance in

 the contention raised by Ms. Shinde, learned APP that this point

 should have been raised before the learned Trial Court. Apart from

 that learned APP submitted that the charge framed clearly sets out

 the case which the Appellant has to meet. However, there is

 substance in the contention that the charge framed is vague and

 not specific.



 15.       Assuming that the above point should have been raised

 before the learned Trial Court and further assuming that the

 charge is properly framed, perusal of the evidence of PW2 i.e. the

 victim shows that, victim has specifically stated that the Accused

 had committed Dirty Acts with her and due to the same she

 became pregnant. Her evidence further shows that, although no

 details are given about the said Dirty Acts, however, it has been

 mentioned that the Appellant removed her clothes and committed

 the sexual assault and because of the said Dirty Acts she became

 pregnant. Perusal of the evidence of PW2 shows that on many

 occasions, the victim was indicating what she want to say by signs.

 The learned Trial Court has recorded that, the same was done as




                               Page 16 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                     ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




 the witness was not understanding Hindi as her mother tongue is

 Bihari.



 16.       The oral deposition of the victim shows that although she

 has been extensively cross-examined the evidence on record shows

 that, in her testimony the Appellant has stated that the Appellant

 has sexually assaulted her and therefore she has become pregnant.

 In view of this, what is important to note is the evidence regarding

 DNA report. The PW5 - Pushpa Pandharinath Nathwale, who is the

 Assistant Chemical Analysis, working at FSI Kalina, Mumbai

 admitted in the cross-examination that it is not proved that

 Accused is the biological father of the fetus. She has stated in

 examination-in-chief as under:-


       "5.   1 initially analysized blood sample of accused
       samsung sawara. Now I am shwon examination report, it
       bears my signature at portion mark A, its contents are
       correct. Marked as exhbit-28. Then I analyzed blood
       sample of Rubina and POC (product of conception) and
       placenta. I analyzed it by method of EZ-1, the automatic
       method. In analysis shows that regarding POC and
       Placenta matching with Rubina as a mother.

       However POC does not show matching with father
       samsung Tarun sawara. In the sample of Fetus the father's
       allele were not found in the proper contents. The sample
       was defective. In the sample of fetus only blood sample of
       fetus was received. As the fetus was terminited when




                               Page 17 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                     ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                 13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




       pregancy was hardly two moths and bones were not
       developed and tissue of bon were not send in the sample,
       the sample was not interpretable, Therefore the DNA from
       the fetus could not be extracted. Therefore comparison
       and matching of Fetus with the father i.e samsung sawara
       could not be done. Now I am shown my report, the result
       of analysis. It bears my signature at portion mark A, its
       contents are correct. Report is marked as exhibit-29.

       6. As the sample of femur bone of the fetus was not
       received, I could not analyze it properly, therefore I
       mentioned in my report that no interpretable DNA profile
       is obtained from product of conception."
                                                (Emphasis added)

 PW5 has admitted in her cross-examination that it is not proved

 that the Accused is the biological father. Thus, there is doubt about

 the prosecution case.



 17.       It is also required to note that in statement recorded under

 Section 164 of CrPC the victim only states that a boy has sexually

 assaulted her. Thereafter, at the fag end of the said statement she

 states that, the name of the said boy was Samshan or something

 like the same. In the FIR registered by the mother of the victim i.e.

 PW1 it is stated that the name of persons who were staying in the

 said building are Kismat, Shamim, Samsher, Samsun Tarun Savra,

 his brother-in-law and his family. Thus, there is similarity in the

 three names namely Shamim, Samshan and Samsun. In the




                                Page 18 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                      ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                 13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




 statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC the victim has

 stated name of the Accused as Samshan and the victim's mother

 has stated that Shamim, Samshan and Samsun were staying in the

 said building. Thus, in fact there is grave doubt about the identity

 of the Accused and therefore involvement of the Appellant in the

 crime. This is more so as the evidence on record do not

 conclusively show that the Appellant is the father of the fetus.

 Thus, the Appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt.



 18.       Ms. Shinde, learned APP is right in pointing out that, the

 victim has identified, the Accused in the Court and has stated that

 the Accused has committed Dirty Acts with her. However, as noted

 herein above, there is doubt about the prosecution case. The victim

 has answered some questions by signs as she was having difficulty

 in understanding Hindi.



 19.       It is also required to be noted that, the FIR was lodged as

 victim started vomitting and therefore PW1-mother performed

 pregnancy test with the medical kit available in the medical shop

 and as the test was positive FIR was lodged. The evidence on

 record show that the mother of the victim was at native place




                                Page 19 of 21
 Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2025                      ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
                                                 13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC




 when the incident took place and she has no personal knowledge.

 Thus, although there is some evidence which shows the

 involvement of the Appellant in the crime, however, by considering

 the entire evidence on record the Appellant is entitled for the

 benefit of doubt.



 20.       It is also required to be noted that the sentence imposed on

 the Appellant is of 10 years and the Appellant has completed

 actual imprisonment of about 7 years and 5 months and completed

 imprisonment including remission of about 9 years and 2 months.



 21.       Accordingly, for the above reasons the Criminal Appeal is

 allowed by passing following operative order.


                                      ORDER

1. The Criminal Appeal No.368 of 2022 is allowed.

2. The Judgment and Order dated 22nd August 2019 passed by

the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Gr. Mumbai in

POCSO Case No.250 of 2018 for the offence punishable under

Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is quashed and set

aside.

Page 20 of 21

Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::
13 PT81-APEAL-368-2022(J).DOC

3. The Appellant-Samsun Savra be released forthwith, unless

he is required in any other case.

4. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

Page 21 of 21
Vaibhav

::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/07/2025 08:19:38 :::



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here