A woman may be having easy virtue but that does not
mean that all and sundry can take advantage of this fact. She
has right to say no. Therefore, even if, it is assume that the
victim was having two boy friends that does not empower the
applicant to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. She
had not attained consenting age. Unavailability of earning
particularly in the family is not a relevant consideration for
suspension of sentence.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1110 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2017
Shrikantsingh Sukhdev Singh V The State of Maharashtra.
CORAM: A.M.BADAR,J
DATED: 21st September, 2017
Citation: 2017SCCONLINE BOM 8878
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and
releasing the applicant/accused on bail during the pendency
of the appeal filed by him. After the Trial the
applicant/accused is convicted of the offence punishable
under section 5(n) r/w 6 of the Protection of the Children
from Sexual Offences Act as well as under Section 506 of the
Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years apart from directions to pay fine of
Rs.2500/.
2. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the
applicant/accused at sufficient length of time by taking me
through the order passed by this court in Criminal Application
No.1132 of 2016. The learned Advocate submitted that during
the pendency of the trial the applicant/accused was on bail
and he has not misused the opportunity. He has further
argued that there is delay in lodging the First Information
Report and when the alleged victim of the crime in question
was taken to shelter home she has not disclosed the incident
of rape on her. She was having two boy friends, with whom
she had sexual relations. Therefore, in submission of the
learned advocate for the applicant/accused, as there is no
earning member at the house of the applicant, he needs to be
released on bail. The learned APP opposed the application.
3. I have carefully considered the submission advanced
and also perused copies of deposition as well as impugned
judgment and order. Particularly material brought on record
from the cross examination of the victim, it is seen that she
was a female child at the time of the incident in question.
Her mother had deserted her father and therefore, she was
required to be at the mercy of her aunt. The applicant is
husband of the aunt of the victim a minor female child. She
has categorically stated that the applicant had committed
penetrative sexual assault with her repeatedly.
4. A woman may be having easy virtue but that does not
mean that all and sundry can take advantage of this fact. She
has right to say no. Therefore, even if, it is assume that the
victim was having two boy friends that does not empower the
applicant to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. She
had not attained consenting age. Unavailability of earning
particularly in the family is not a relevant consideration for
suspension of sentence.
5. The offence alleged is serious. After due trial the
applicant/accused is held guilty of the offence. Hence, no case
for grant of bail is made out. Hence the application is rejected.
6. The application is disposed of accordingly.
( A.M. BADAR, J.)
mean that all and sundry can take advantage of this fact. She
has right to say no. Therefore, even if, it is assume that the
victim was having two boy friends that does not empower the
applicant to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. She
had not attained consenting age. Unavailability of earning
particularly in the family is not a relevant consideration for
suspension of sentence.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1110 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2017
Shrikantsingh Sukhdev Singh V The State of Maharashtra.
CORAM: A.M.BADAR,J
DATED: 21st September, 2017
Citation: 2017SCCONLINE BOM 8878
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and
releasing the applicant/accused on bail during the pendency
of the appeal filed by him. After the Trial the
applicant/accused is convicted of the offence punishable
under section 5(n) r/w 6 of the Protection of the Children
from Sexual Offences Act as well as under Section 506 of the
Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years apart from directions to pay fine of
Rs.2500/.
2. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the
applicant/accused at sufficient length of time by taking me
through the order passed by this court in Criminal Application
No.1132 of 2016. The learned Advocate submitted that during
the pendency of the trial the applicant/accused was on bail
and he has not misused the opportunity. He has further
argued that there is delay in lodging the First Information
Report and when the alleged victim of the crime in question
was taken to shelter home she has not disclosed the incident
of rape on her. She was having two boy friends, with whom
she had sexual relations. Therefore, in submission of the
learned advocate for the applicant/accused, as there is no
earning member at the house of the applicant, he needs to be
released on bail. The learned APP opposed the application.
3. I have carefully considered the submission advanced
and also perused copies of deposition as well as impugned
judgment and order. Particularly material brought on record
from the cross examination of the victim, it is seen that she
was a female child at the time of the incident in question.
Her mother had deserted her father and therefore, she was
required to be at the mercy of her aunt. The applicant is
husband of the aunt of the victim a minor female child. She
has categorically stated that the applicant had committed
penetrative sexual assault with her repeatedly.
4. A woman may be having easy virtue but that does not
mean that all and sundry can take advantage of this fact. She
has right to say no. Therefore, even if, it is assume that the
victim was having two boy friends that does not empower the
applicant to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. She
had not attained consenting age. Unavailability of earning
particularly in the family is not a relevant consideration for
suspension of sentence.
5. The offence alleged is serious. After due trial the
applicant/accused is held guilty of the offence. Hence, no case
for grant of bail is made out. Hence the application is rejected.
6. The application is disposed of accordingly.
( A.M. BADAR, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment