35 APEAL-772-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 772 OF 2026 Maqbool Ahmed Mohd. Sharif ..Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & anr. …Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4734 OF 2025 IN APPEAL NO. 772 OF 2026 Mr. Tanoj Joshi, for the Appellant. Ms. Rashmi Tendulkar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Akshay Dingale, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER :- IA/4734/2025 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application for suspension of sentence and to enlarge the applicant on bail. 3. The gravamen of indictment against the applicant is that the applicant was residing alongwith the victim, who was then 15 years of age, and her mother. The mother of the victim was working as a housemaid. The applicant was plying a taxi. After SAINATH, PA 1/5 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.09.19 17:11:53 +0530 35 APEAL-772-26.DOC the mother of the applicant left the house for work, the victim alleged, the applicant returned and subjected her to penetrative sexual assault on multiple occasions. The accused had beaten her and threatened to set her ablaze if she disclosed the incidents to her mother. When the victim was at her native place in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the victim was taken to the Doctor and it then transpired that, the victim was carrying 5 months pregnancy. Upon being inquired, the victim narrated the incident of sexual exploitation at the hands of the applicant. 4. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Special Judge convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). For the major offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the applicant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation. 5. Mr. Tanoj Joshi, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, the impugned judgment suffers from patent infirmities. Firstly, the fact that the victim was a child itself has not been established. Secondly, the prosecution version is inherently improbable. As the factum of pregnancy must have SAINATH, PA 2/5 35 APEAL-772-26.DOC been discovered much before the victim was found to be carrying pregnancy of 7 months. Thirdly, DNA report which indicates that, the applicant and victim were the biological parents of the baby, died during Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP), could not have been relied upon for the apparent infirmities in the process of collection and analysis of the samples. 6. In opposition to this, Ms. Tendulkar, the learned APP for Respondent – State, and Mr. Akshay Dingale, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, stoutly opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It was submitted that, the offences have been proved to the hilt as it was an open and shut case. The testimony of the victim finds support in the conclusive DNA report. 7. At the stage of considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is not expected to meticulously evaluate the evidence. It has to be seen whether the convict has a fair chance of success in the appeal. Re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. 8. In the context of the broad view that emerges from the material on record, this Court finds it rather difficult to accede to the submissions of Mr. Joshi. On the aspect of the age of the SAINATH, PA 3/5 35 APEAL-772-26.DOC victim, the trial Court has analyzed the documents, tendered in support of the prosecution case. Those findings do not suffer from patent error or infirmity. 9. The victim has categorically deposed about the circumstances in which she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. Interestingly, during the course of cross-examination of the victim and her mother, an endeavour was made to drive home the point that, the sexual relations were rather consensual. 10. The testimony of the victim, at this stage, commands weight and also finds prima facie unwavering support in the DNA report. At this juncture, the report of DNA analysis cannot be discarded for the purported infirmities in the collection and analysis of the samples. The fact that, the applicant was residing with the victim and her mother, was also deposed to by the daughter of the landlord of the subject premises. If viewed through this prism, it would be rather difficult to accede to the submission of Mr. Joshi that, the prosecution case is inherently improbable. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this court is not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. SAINATH, PA 4/5 35 APEAL-772-26.DOC 12. Hence the following order :- : : O R D E R : : (i) The Interim Application stands rejected. (ii)The hearing of the Appeal stands expedited. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 5/5