SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Raju Vitthal Shriram @ Dhangar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2018

Sherla V.




Raju Vitthal Shriram @ Dhangar … Appellant
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

Mr.Nitesh Mohite h/f Mr.Jaydeep Mane for the Appellant

Ms.S.S. Kaushik, APP, for the Respondent – State




1. This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated

8.2.218 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Pandharpur in Criminal Appeal No.564 of 2017. The

applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under

sections 373, 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Cod, under sections

3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(5), 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also under

sections 4, 8, 12, 17 and 42 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, in C.R. No.253 of 2017 registered at Karkam

Page 1 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 21/09/2018 23/09/2018 00:51:42 :::

police station. The offence was registered on 25.10.2017 by the

mother of the prosecutrix.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the victim, who claimed

to be 14 years old, was staying with her family at Karkamb, District

Solapur. She belongs to the scheduled caste, namely, ‘Chamar’. In

the month of August, 2017 approximately, she became friendly with

the applicant/accused, who was working as a labourer in the field

of the neighbour. It is the case of the prosecution that the

applicant/accused expressed his love towards her and he forcibly

had sexual intercourse with her on four times. She thereafter had

conceived in the month of October, 2017. When the complaint

was given by her mother, at that time, the victim was pregnant of 2

months. She was then taken to Civil hospital, Solapur by her

parents and the fetus was aborted. The fluid and placenta were

preserved for DNA examination. The police carried out

investigation and chargesheet is filed and thereafter, the

applicant/accused moved application for bail u/s 439 of Code of

Criminal Procedure before the trial Court, however, it was rejected.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted

that there is variance in the statements of the victim and also other

Page 2 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 21/09/2018 23/09/2018 00:51:42 :::

persons. He has submitted that the applicant is 27 years old

innocent person and no such incident of sexual intercourse has

taken place. The learned Counsel has submitted that the report of

DNA, which was awaited, is now received.

4. The learned Prosecutor while opposing this application, has

produced a sealed packet received of the DNA report, from the

Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Pune. She submitted that

the prosecutrix is now married and residing with her husband in

some other village.

5. We opened the said report dated 7.9.2018 which discloses

that the reference to the C.A. was made on 29.11.2017. A packet

of placenta, the fluid and fetus was sent for DNA examination to

the C.A. and the result after conducting the examination, is as


“(i) xxx is concluded to be biological mother of the fetus of

(ii) Raju Vitthal Shriram @ Dhangar (applicant/accused) is
excluded to be biological father of the fetus of xxx.”

6. The analysis started on 15.7.2018 and it was completed on

1.9.2018. Though the offence is registered under the Scheduled

Page 3 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 21/09/2018 23/09/2018 00:51:42 :::

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and

under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, after

taking into account the report of the DNA examination by the CA,

that the applicant is excluded to be the biological father of the fetus

of the victim xxx, we are of the view that prima facie, the

applicant/accused is entitled to bail and hence, granted bail as


i) The applicant/accused Raju Vitthal Shriram @

Dhangar, be released on bail upon furnishing P.R. bond in

the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the

like amount;

ii) The applicant/accused shall not meet or pressurise the

prosecutrix or her family members;

iii) The applicant/accused shall not abscond or jump bail;

iv) The applicant/accused shall attend on all the Court


7. The observations made herein are prima facie in nature and

are confined to the adjudication of the present appeal only.

Page 4 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 21/09/2018 23/09/2018 00:51:42 :::


8. Appeal is disposed of on the above terms.


Page 5 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 21/09/2018 23/09/2018 00:51:42 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation