SAGAR GAUTAM SABLE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Analysis of Kidnapping, Sexual Assault, and Harassment Convictions under IPC and POCSO Act: Scrutiny of Evidence and Testimony.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:1105
Decision Date: 12-01-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Code of Criminal Procedure; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Facts: The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO), Aurangabad, for offences under Sections 363, 376-AB, and 354-A(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 4(2) and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The conviction stemmed from an incident where the appellant allegedly took the minor victim on the pretext of an outing, leading to accusations of kidnapping and sexual assault. The victim's mother (PW-2) filed the initial report after her daughter went missing.
- Procedural Posture: The appellant challenged his conviction through a criminal appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.
- Issue: Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 376-AB, and 354-A(2) of the IPC, and Sections 4(2) and 8 of the POCSO Act, is sustainable based on the evidence presented, particularly considering the victim's testimony and the medical evidence. Specifically, the court examined whether the essential ingredients of kidnapping, sexual assault, and sexual harassment were adequately proven.
- Holding: The High Court partly allowed the appeal. The conviction under Sections 363, 354-A(2) of the IPC, and Section 8 of the POCSO Act was maintained. However, the appellant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 376-AB of the IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act.
- Reasoning: The Court found sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction for kidnapping (Section 363 IPC) and sexual harassment (Section 354-A(2) IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act), relying on the victim's testimony (PW-1) and the circumstances surrounding the incident. However, the Court found a lack of conclusive evidence regarding the commission of rape or penetrating sexual assault (Sections 376-AB IPC and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act). The medical evidence (PW-5) did not support the allegations of penetration, insertion, or manipulation, and the victim's testimony regarding forceful sexual intercourse was deemed questionable due to the nature of the leading questions asked during her examination. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.
🔒 For Members Only