920-Criappl-2026-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2026 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.424 OF 2025 Sunil Shankarrao Kulkarni, Age: 48 years, Occu: Auto-Rickshaw Driver, R/o. Basveshvarnagar, Near Lokmitnagar, Tq. & Dist. Nanded At present in Jail …. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. …. Respondents ….. Mr. Prathmesh Kundulwadikar h/f Ms. Anuja A. Fulfagar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. C. V. Bhadane, Advocate for Respondent – State Mr. N. N. Bhagwat, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2 ….. CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATE : 19.09.2025 PER COURT : 1. This is an Application for suspension of substantive sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Special Case (POCSO) No.91/2022 vide Judgment and Order dated 19/04/2025, convicting the Applicant as follows : “1. Accused Sunil Shankarrao Kulkarni is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 354-D and 506 of Indian Penal Code vide Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 1 2025:BHC-AUG:25389 920-Criappl-2026-2025.odt 2. Accused is found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 354, 354-A of Indian Panel Code and offences punishable under Section 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. He is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 4. He is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 8 months for the offence punishable under Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012” 2. The case of Prosecution, in brief, is that, the Informant, a minor daughter aged twelve [12] years, was a school going girl. The Applicant used to pickup and drop the Victim in his auto-rickshaw for tuition class. On 22/07/2022, when the Victim was travelling in the auto-rickshaw driven by the Applicant in the evening at 07:00 p.m., the auto-rickshaw was stopped at one place in a Galli, where it was dark and the Applicant touched the private parts of the Victim and thereafter threatened her to kill if she informs about the said act to anybody. On reaching home, the Victim narrated the incident to her mother and Victim’s mother approached the Police and lodged the report and Crime No.248/2022 came to be registered with Bhagyanagar 2 920-Criappl-2026-2025.odt Police Station, Nanded District, for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ the POCSO’]. 3. 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned Advocate for the Respondent – State and the learned Advocate for the Victim. 4. The Victim is examined as Witness No.3. At the time of deposition, her age is shown as fourteen [14] years. According to her, at the time of incident, she was twelve [12] years of age. She deposed that, the Applicant touched her private parts when she was travelling in the auto- rickshaw driven by the Applicant in one Galli near Lokmit Nagar. The evidence on record goes to show that, it was the mother of the Victim, who showed the spot of incident, though she was not present at the spot of incident at the time of incident. Though the evidence of the Investigating Officer shows that, the Informant had shown the spot of incident, and though he volunteered in the cross-examination that, the Victim was along with the Informant, the Spot Panchnama nowhere shows the presence of the Victim at the time of drawing the Panchnama. 5. Even if the above aspect is ignored, the evidence of the Informant, who is none other, but the mother of the Victim did not give consent to medically examine the Victim, as according to her, no untoward 3 920-Criappl-2026-2025.odt incident had taken place with the Victim. The relevant Paragraph No.9 from the testimony of the Informant, who is examined as PW No.1, is reproduced below : “९- ikssyhl gs fiMhrsyk oSn;fd; rikl.khlkBh ikBfo.kkj gksrs- R;kauh ek>h laerh fopkjyh gksrh- Ik.k fiMhrslkscr dlykgh vuwfpr izdkj ?kMyk ukgh ;k dkj.kko#u eh fiMhrsP;k oSn;fd; rikl.khlkBh udkj fnyk gksrk-” 5. The above evidence of the Informant, prima facie, is fatal for the Prosecution and would lean in favour of the Applicant. There are arguable points in the Appeal. The sentence imposed on the Applicant is a term sentence. The Appeal is of the year 2025 and is to be admitted and it will not be come up for final hearing in near future. Thus, I am inclined to allow the Application. Hence the following order : ORDER [I] Criminal Application is allowed. [II] The substantive sentence imposed upon the Applicant, namely, Sunil Shankarrao Kulkarni, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, vide Judgment and Order dated 19/04/2025, passed in Special Case (POCSO) No.91/2022, is hereby suspended till the final disposal of the Appeal. [III] The Applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- [Rupees Fifteen Thousand] with one surety in the like amount. [IV] The Applicant shall co-operate in early disposal of the Appeal. 4 920-Criappl-2026-2025.odt [V] Bail before the Trial Court. [VI] For this Application, fees of the learned Advocate Mr. N. N. Bhagwat appointed to represent Respondent No. 2 / Victim is quantified at Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand], which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. [VII] Criminal Application stands disposed off accordingly. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] Sameer/September-2025 5 Signed by: Md. Sameer Q. Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/09/2025 10:49:05