{"id":2104,"date":"2025-12-04T11:04:27","date_gmt":"2025-12-04T05:34:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=2104"},"modified":"2025-12-04T10:50:31","modified_gmt":"2025-12-04T05:20:31","slug":"suspends-sentence-under-pocso","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/suspends-sentence-under-pocso\/","title":{"rendered":"If the AGE itself is in DOUBT, how can Justice be CERTAIN?: Bombay HC Suspends 15-Year Sentence of Pune Man Convicted Under POCSO"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Bombay High Court has suspended the 15-year sentence of a man convicted under POCSO, noting inconsistencies in the victim\u2019s age and signs of consensual relationship. The Court said the appeal may succeed and granted bail with strict conditions.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

MAHARASHTRA<\/em>: The Bombay High Court<\/strong> suspended the 15-year rigorous imprisonment<\/strong> sentence of Dilip Ramdev Kashab<\/strong>, who was convicted by a Pune POCSO Court<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dilip Kashab had been convicted by the Special POCSO Court<\/strong> in Pune on 23 March 2022<\/strong> in Special Case No. 482\/2018<\/strong>. The trial court held him guilty under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC<\/strong>, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act<\/strong>, and sentenced him to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment<\/strong>, along with fines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background from the Trial Court Judgment (2022)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The trial court accepted the prosecution\u2019s claim that the girl was a minor of 17 years. The judgment recorded that her Birth Certificate (Exh.19)<\/strong> mentioned the date of birth as 29.12.2001<\/strong>, and stated that the \u201cregistration of date of birth\u2026 was already taken place on 02.01.2002<\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The victim\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court reproduced multiple statements, including the girl\u2019s allegation that the accused said \u201che likes her too much, he wants to meet her\u201d<\/strong>, that he promised marriage, and had intercourse \u201cwithout her will<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judgment also relied on the medical findings, where the doctor stated there was \u201cevidence of vaginal penetration and pregnancy of 27 weeks<\/strong>\u201d<\/em> along with healed hymenal tears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cbiological parents of the newly born baby<\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial court rejected the defence argument of consensual relations, citing presumption under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, stating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe court shall presume that she did not consent.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The trial judge finally held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cAccused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of fifteen years\u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

High Court Observations Leading to Suspension of Sentence (2025)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On 28 November 2025<\/strong>, Justice R.M. Joshi of the Bombay High Court heard Dilip\u2019s application seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The defence argued that the prosecution failed to prove the girl\u2019s age beyond doubt. The High Court noted this submission and reproduced the inconsistency relating to the Birth Certificate:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The accused\u2019s counsel pointed out that the Investigating Officer had stated that \u201cat the time of filing of the First information Report the Birth Certificate was obtained from the Informant\u201d<\/em><\/strong>, but the certificate on record showed the issue date as 29th August 2018<\/strong>, which was after the FIR. This, they argued, cast \u201cdoubt\u2026 as to the genuineness of the said document.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court then made the most crucial observation of the case:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cPrima 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court also noted that the victim\u2019s cross-examination suggested that \u201cit was consensual relations between victim and Appellant and it is a case of love affair<\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, because the accused had already been in jail \u201cmore than 3 years<\/strong>\u201d<\/em> and the appeal would \u201cnot likely be heard in short period of time<\/strong>\u201d<\/em>, the Court held that the sentence should be suspended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Final High Court Order<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cThe substantive sentence imposed\u2026 stands suspended till the decision of the Appeal.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe Appellant-Dilip Ramdev Kashab be enlarged on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000\/- with one surety\u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe Appellant shall not contact the victim in any manner whatsoever directly or indirectly.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cAny breach of this condition will result the vacation of this order and the Appellant shall be taken in custody\u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The High Court did not<\/strong> say the man is innocent.
But it clearly said that the evidence\u2014especially the proof of age\u2014has 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By questioning the proof of age, the High Court has opened a big door for re-evaluation of the entire conviction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also recognised that the victim herself admitted certain things in cross-examination which may weaken the prosecution case during final hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because appeals in such cases take years, the Court decided it was fair to release the man on bail while the appeal continues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"HC
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Used In This Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td>Applied Where?<\/strong><\/td>Meaning In Simple English<\/strong><\/td>Relevance In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
IPC Section 376(2)(n)<\/strong><\/td>Trial Court<\/td>Repeated rape; sexual intercourse multiple times without consent<\/td>Trial court held repeated acts proved & sentenced accused to 15 years<\/td><\/tr>
IPC Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation)<\/strong><\/td>Trial Court<\/td>Threatening someone with injury or death<\/td>Victim alleged threats to keep silent; Court held threats proved<\/td><\/tr>
POCSO Act <\/a>Section 5(j)(ii)(l)<\/strong><\/td>Trial Court<\/td>Aggravated penetrative sexual assault; child becomes pregnant due to assault<\/td>Court held pregnancy was result of sexual acts; used to invoke harsher punishment<\/td><\/tr>
POCSO Act Section 6<\/strong><\/td>Trial Court<\/td>Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault (10 years to life)<\/td>Accused convicted under this but no separate sentence imposed because IPC 376(2)(n) carries higher punishment<\/td><\/tr>
POCSO Act Section 29<\/strong><\/td>Trial Court<\/td>Presumption of guilt unless accused proves otherwise<\/td>Court applied presumption that assault occurred<\/td><\/tr>
POCSO Act Section 30<\/strong><\/td>Trial Court<\/td>Presumption of mental intent for sexual offence<\/td>Used to hold accused responsible<\/td><\/tr>
Indian Evidence Act <\/a>Section 114-A<\/strong><\/td>Trial Court<\/td>If woman says she did NOT consent, court presumes no consent<\/td>Trial court used this to reject defence argument of consensual relationship<\/td><\/tr>
CrPC Section 164<\/strong><\/td>Investigation<\/td>Recording detailed statement of the victim before Magistrate<\/td>Victim\u2019s 164 statement was used to support prosecution story<\/td><\/tr>
CrPC Section 313<\/strong><\/td>Trial Court<\/td>Accused\u2019s explanation against evidence<\/td>Accused denied allegations<\/td><\/tr>
CrPC Section 235(2)<\/strong><\/td>Sentencing<\/td>Hearing accused before deciding punishment<\/td>Trial court followed this before sentencing<\/td><\/tr>
CrPC Section 428<\/strong><\/td>Set-off<\/td>Jail time already served counts toward total sentence<\/td>Mentioned in trial order<\/td><\/tr>
POCSO Act Section 42<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Sentencing<\/td>When both IPC & POCSO apply, higher punishment prevails<\/td>Court used this to apply IPC 376(2)(n) sentence<\/td><\/tr>
DNA Evidence (Forensic Reports)<\/strong><\/td>Investigation & Trial<\/td>Establish biological relationship<\/td>Court relied on DNA to confirm accused as biological father<\/td><\/tr>
Bail<\/a> Jurisdiction (High Court)<\/strong><\/td>Appeal Stage<\/td>Power to suspend sentence pending appeal<\/td>High Court used this to suspend 15-year sentence<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Title<\/strong>: Dilip Ramdev Kashab vs. State of Maharashtra<\/strong> (High Court: Interim Application No.1842\/2023 in Criminal Appeal No.774\/2025) (Trial Court: Special POCSO Case No.482\/2018)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bench \/ Judges<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n