The Bombay High Court has suspended the 15-year sentence of a man convicted under POCSO, noting inconsistencies in the victim’s age and signs of consensual relationship. The Court said the appeal may succeed and granted bail with strict conditions.
MAHARASHTRA: The Bombay High Court suspended the 15-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of Dilip Ramdev Kashab, who was convicted by a Pune POCSO Court in March 2022. The High Court noted serious doubts about the age of the girl involved, along with contradictions in the evidence, giving the accused a fair chance to contest the conviction during appeal.
Dilip Kashab had been convicted by the Special POCSO Court in Pune on 23 March 2022 in Special Case No. 482/2018. The trial court held him guilty under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced him to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment, along with fines.
Background from the Trial Court Judgment (2022)
The trial court accepted the prosecution’s claim that the girl was a minor of 17 years. The judgment recorded that her Birth Certificate (Exh.19) mentioned the date of birth as 29.12.2001, and stated that the “registration of date of birth… was already taken place on 02.01.2002.”
The victim’s statement alleged that the accused had forcibly established physical relations with her behind the society where she lived and that she did not tell anyone because he threatened her.
The court reproduced multiple statements, including the girl’s allegation that the accused said “he likes her too much, he wants to meet her”, that he promised marriage, and had intercourse “without her will.”
The judgment also relied on the medical findings, where the doctor stated there was “evidence of vaginal penetration and pregnancy of 27 weeks” along with healed hymenal tears.
The trial court concluded that repeated sexual relations were proved, the survivor was a minor, and DNA reports showed the accused and the girl were “biological parents of the newly born baby.”
The trial court rejected the defence argument of consensual relations, citing presumption under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, stating:
“The court shall presume that she did not consent.”
The trial judge finally held:
“Accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of fifteen years…”
High Court Observations Leading to Suspension of Sentence (2025)
On 28 November 2025, Justice R.M. Joshi of the Bombay High Court heard Dilip’s application seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal.
The defence argued that the prosecution failed to prove the girl’s age beyond doubt. The High Court noted this submission and reproduced the inconsistency relating to the Birth Certificate:
The accused’s counsel pointed out that the Investigating Officer had stated that “at the time of filing of the First information Report the Birth Certificate was obtained from the Informant”, but the certificate on record showed the issue date as 29th August 2018, which was after the FIR. This, they argued, cast “doubt… as to the genuineness of the said document.”
The High Court then made the most crucial observation of the case:
“Prima facie this Court find substance in the contention of the counsel for the Appellant that, he would be in a position to challenge the age of the victim, in view of the inconsistencies the evidence with regard to the date of birth.”
The Court also noted that the victim’s cross-examination suggested that “it was consensual relations between victim and Appellant and it is a case of love affair.”
Further, because the accused had already been in jail “more than 3 years” and the appeal would “not likely be heard in short period of time”, the Court held that the sentence should be suspended.
Final High Court Order
“The substantive sentence imposed… stands suspended till the decision of the Appeal.”
“The Appellant-Dilip Ramdev Kashab be enlarged on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety…”
“The Appellant shall not contact the victim in any manner whatsoever directly or indirectly.”
“Any breach of this condition will result the vacation of this order and the Appellant shall be taken in custody…”
The High Court did not say the man is innocent.
But it clearly said that the evidence—especially the proof of age—has major gaps. When age is under question in a POCSO case, the entire legal footing changes because the law treats consent of a minor as irrelevant.
By questioning the proof of age, the High Court has opened a big door for re-evaluation of the entire conviction.
The Court also recognised that the victim herself admitted certain things in cross-examination which may weaken the prosecution case during final hearing.
Because appeals in such cases take years, the Court decided it was fair to release the man on bail while the appeal continues.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Used In This Case
| Law / Section | Applied Where? | Meaning In Simple English | Relevance In This Case |
| IPC Section 376(2)(n) | Trial Court | Repeated rape; sexual intercourse multiple times without consent | Trial court held repeated acts proved & sentenced accused to 15 years |
| IPC Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation) | Trial Court | Threatening someone with injury or death | Victim alleged threats to keep silent; Court held threats proved |
| POCSO Act Section 5(j)(ii)(l) | Trial Court | Aggravated penetrative sexual assault; child becomes pregnant due to assault | Court held pregnancy was result of sexual acts; used to invoke harsher punishment |
| POCSO Act Section 6 | Trial Court | Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault (10 years to life) | Accused convicted under this but no separate sentence imposed because IPC 376(2)(n) carries higher punishment |
| POCSO Act Section 29 | Trial Court | Presumption of guilt unless accused proves otherwise | Court applied presumption that assault occurred |
| POCSO Act Section 30 | Trial Court | Presumption of mental intent for sexual offence | Used to hold accused responsible |
| Indian Evidence Act Section 114-A | Trial Court | If woman says she did NOT consent, court presumes no consent | Trial court used this to reject defence argument of consensual relationship |
| CrPC Section 164 | Investigation | Recording detailed statement of the victim before Magistrate | Victim’s 164 statement was used to support prosecution story |
| CrPC Section 313 | Trial Court | Accused’s explanation against evidence | Accused denied allegations |
| CrPC Section 235(2) | Sentencing | Hearing accused before deciding punishment | Trial court followed this before sentencing |
| CrPC Section 428 | Set-off | Jail time already served counts toward total sentence | Mentioned in trial order |
| POCSO Act Section 42 | Sentencing | When both IPC & POCSO apply, higher punishment prevails | Court used this to apply IPC 376(2)(n) sentence |
| DNA Evidence (Forensic Reports) | Investigation & Trial | Establish biological relationship | Court relied on DNA to confirm accused as biological father |
| Bail Jurisdiction (High Court) | Appeal Stage | Power to suspend sentence pending appeal | High Court used this to suspend 15-year sentence |
Case Title: Dilip Ramdev Kashab vs. State of Maharashtra (High Court: Interim Application No.1842/2023 in Criminal Appeal No.774/2025) (Trial Court: Special POCSO Case No.482/2018)
Bench / Judges
- Bombay High Court
- Justice R.M. Joshi
- Trial Court (Pune)
- Additional Sessions Judge Sunil G. Vedpathak
Counsels As Per Records
- For the Appellant (Accused) in High Court: Mr. Harshwardhan Milind Pawar (i/b Mr. Milind D. Pawar)
- For the State: Mr. A.S. Gawai, APP
- For Respondent No.2 (Victim): Ms. Kanchan Pawar, Appointed Advocate
- Police Officer Present: Mr. N.B. Chapale, PSI, Sangvi Police Station
- Trial Court Lawyers (Pune):
- Adv. Mr. M.S. Jadhav for the accused
- Addl. P.P. Mr. H.Y. Mendki for the Prosecution
Important Factual Details
- From Trial Court (Pune):
- Crime No.: 376/2018, Sangvi Police Station
- Charges: IPC 376(2)(n), 506; POCSO 5(j)(ii)(l), 6
- Court held accused guilty based on:
- Sentence: 15 years RI + fines
- Judge refused leniency, saying a soft approach sends a “bad message” to society.
From High Court (2025 Bail Order):
- The Court highlighted major inconsistency regarding victim’s age.
- Observation: “prima facie… he would be in a position to challenge the age of the victim.”
- Court noted cross-examination showed “consensual relations… love affair”.
- Since appeal won’t be heard soon & accused already in jail 3+ years, sentence was suspended.
- Bail granted with conditions:
- No contact with victim
- PR Bond ₹15,000
- Mark attendance every 6 months
Key Takeaways
- When even the girl’s age is doubtful, slapping POCSO becomes a tool of overreach, not justice.
- The High Court acknowledged that the relationship may have been consensual, something lower courts often ignore.
- DNA alone cannot become a shortcut to convict a man when the core facts—like age—are shaky.
- Three years of jail before appeal shows how men suffer punishment first and trial later.
- The case proves why POCSO must be applied with caution; one allegation can destroy a man’s life even before courts correct the record.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.