SURESH S/O GOVINDRAO MUNESHWAR v. STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS SEWAGRAM DIST.WARDHA
Conviction for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Upheld; Clarification that Refreshing Witness Memory from Police Statements Affects Probative Value but does not Render Testimony Inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:3294-DB
Decision Date: 23-02-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 375, 376); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Sections 5, 6, 42); The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 161, 162, 164); The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Principles of Sentencing Policy
- Facts: The appellant, a 63-year-old man, was accused of sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl who had gone to his house to play with his son. On October 11, 2015, the victim returned home with her clothes soaked in blood and bleeding profusely from her vagina. She narrated to her maternal grandmother and uncle that the appellant had inserted something into her "organ of urination", causing extreme pain. Medical examination confirmed severe hymenal tears and active bleeding consistent with vaginal penetration. The prosecution relied on the victim's testimony, medical reports, and DNA profiling which matched the blood found at the scene with the victim's DNA. The appellant raised defenses of alibi, political enmity, and accidental injury, which were found inconsistent and unsupported by evidence.
- Procedural Posture: The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Wardha, on October 23, 2020. He was sentenced to life imprisonment (remainder of natural life) and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Aggrieved by this conviction, the appellant preferred the present criminal appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
- Issue: Whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of aggravated penetrative sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the testimony of witnesses becomes inadmissible if they had reviewed their previous statements before deposing in court.
- Holding: Yes, the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court further held that while reading over police statements to witnesses before they enter the witness box is not a healthy practice, it does not render the evidence inadmissible; rather, it only affects the probative value to be judged by the court.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the victim's testimony was consistent, reliable, and corroborated by her immediate outcry to her family. The medical evidence provided conclusive proof of penetration, and the DNA profile matched the blood at the scene to the victim. Regarding the legal objection under Section 162 CrPC, the Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Nathu Manchhu v. State of Gujarat, clarifying that refreshing memory from a police statement before trial does not create a statutory bar to admissibility. The Court also rejected the request for a reduction in sentence based on the appellant's age, noting the "diabolical and dastardly" nature of the crime against a child under six years of age, which warrants an "iron hand" approach in sentencing.
🔒 For Members Only