As per case facts, a victim girl, aged 17, suffered stomachache, which revealed her pregnancy. She disclosed being lured by a lady to a Maulana who then forcibly committed rape ...
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 897 OF 2023
Mohammad Razaulla Isrial Ansari …Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.306 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 897 OF 2023
Mohammad Razaulla Isrial Ansari …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 922 OF 2023
Afrinbano Guljar Ahmad Khan …Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4439 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 922 OF 2023
Afrinbano Guljar Ahmad Khan …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.310 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 922 OF 2023
Page 1
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
Afrinbano Guljar Ahmad Khan …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.941 OF 2025
Layis Mohammad @ Langada Munna Sharif
Khan
…Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2433 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 941 OF 2025
Layis Mohammad @ Langada Munna Sharif
Khan
…Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Ramprasad V. Gupta a/w. Mr. Rohit Vaishya, Rama Gupta and
Ms. Sadhna Yadav, for the Appellants.
Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Aishwarya Sharma (appointed Advocate), for Respondent No.2
in Criminal Appeal No.941 of 2025.
Mr. Sandeep B. Satkar(appointed Advocate), for Respondent No.2
in Criminal Appeal No.922 of 2023.
CORAM:MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED :10
th
JUNE 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1.Heard Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the
Appellants, Ms. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-
Page 2
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
State, Ms. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent
No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.941 of 2025 and Mr. Satkar, learned
Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.922
of 2023.
2.The challenge in all these Criminal Appeals is to the
judgment and order dated 17
th
June 2023 passed by the learned
Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act, 2012”), Greater
Bombay in POCSO Special Case No.491 of 2019.
3.The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.941 of 2025 is original
accused No.1- Layis Mohammad @ Langada Munna Sharif Khan,
the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.897 of 2023 is original
accused No.2-Mohammad Razaulla Isrial Ansari and the Appellant
in Criminal Appeal No.922 of 2023 is original accused No.3-
Afrinbano Guljar Ahmad Khan. All these three Criminal Appeals
are being disposed of by this common order.
4.By the impugned judgment and order dated 17
th
June 2023
passed by the learned Special Judge, accused No.1 was convicted
Page 3
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(ii) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, 2012 and he was directed to undergo various
sentences as under :
“
(i) For the Offence punishable
Under Section
6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, he is sentenced to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (Ten) years and
to pay fine of Rs.25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five
Thousand only), in default, he shall undergo
further simple imprisonment for the period of
3 (Three) months.
(ii) For the Offence punishable Under Section
506(ii) of IPC he is sentenced to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for Two (2) years.
(iii) As accused No.1 is convicted for the
Offence punishable under Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012, no separate sentence is imposed for
the offence punishable under Section 376 of
IPC in view of Section 42 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
”
5.Accused Nos.2 and 3 were convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 109 read with 376 of the IPC and under
Sections 17 read with 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and were
directed to undergo the various sentences as per the following
details :
Page 4
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
“(i) For the Offence punishable Under Section
17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, they are sentenced to
suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (Ten)
years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000 (Rs.
Five Thousand only), in default, they shall
undergo further simple imprisonment for the
period of 15 (fifteen) days each.
(ii) For the Offence punishable Under Section
21 the Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, they are sentenced to
suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (Six)
months each.
(iii) As accused No.2 and 3 are convicted for
the Offence punishable under Section 17 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012, no separate sentence is imposed for
the offence punishable under Section 109 r/w.
376 of IPC in view of Section 42 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012.
”
6.The prosecution case as set out in the order dated 2
nd
May
2026 passed by the learned Designated Judge under the POCSO
Act, 2012 is as under:
“The victim girl, then aged about 17 years few
months, was residing with her sister and
brother-in-law. On 12/06/2019, the victim girl
suffered stomachache and therefore, her sister
took her for treatment to the hospital. Her
pregnancy revealed. Thereafter, victim
disclosed that prior to about one month, one
unknown lady came to her and lured her by
Page 5
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
saying that she will took her to meet one
Maulana. The said Maulana is having some
super power. If she would listen to him, he will
give money, otherwise her all money will be
lost. The victim girl accompanied the said
woman. Meanwhile, two persons meet them
on bus-stop. They captured the photographs of
the victim girl. All of them went near at plot
No.19, near Hakkani Masjid, Bainganwadi,
Govandi, Mumbai. The lady asked occupants of
one room to vacate the room. Thereafter, she
sent the victim girl in the said room. All three
persons stand outside the room. When the
victim went in the room, one person namely
Maulana was present there. He forcibly
committed rape on her. It is alleged that he
repeatedly committed rape on her for about
four to five times during the period from 01.00
p.m. to 04.00 p.m. At about 04.00 p.m., one
lady namely, Munni alongwith said unknown
lady, who brought the victim there, have
opened the door and they threatened the
victim girl that if she disclosed the incident to
anyone, they would defame her by publishing
the photographs. Hence, victim didn't disclose
the incident to anyone. After receiving this
information, brother-in-law of the victim girl
filed report with the police.”
7.The record shows that the police arrested all three accused
on 15
th
June 2019 and the chargesheet was filed on 21
st
August
2019. During the trial prosecution examined about 11 witnesses.
The learned Special Judge by the impugned judgment and order
dated 17
th
June 2023 convicted all the accused and imposed the
sentence as set out herein above. The said order has been
Page 6
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
challenged by filing these three separate Appeals by accused Nos.1,
2 and 3 respectively.
8.A learned Single Judge by order dated 20
th
November 2025
has issued certain directions. The said directions were issued as on
the basis of the record, it was found that the Appellants were
represented before the learned Trial Court by the legal aid
Advocate and the Court found that no cross examination of P.W. 1
to P.W. 6 has been conducted. The learned Single Judge observed
that since the Appellants were represented by the legal aid
Advocate, it was incumbent on the part of the learned Trial Court
to ensure that during the trial the accused is represented
effectively and that in case of serious offences, the learned Trial
Court ought to have been more vigilant in this regard. After finding
that the Appellants were not represented effectively before the
learned Trial Court and no cross examination of the witnesses is
done and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice, the
learned Single Judge observed that it would be appropriate to give
an opportunity to the Appellant to cross examine the witnesses
who were not cross examined by the appointed Counsel.
Page 7
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
9.In fact, it is required to be noted that a request was made by
the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants that by setting
aside the impugned judgment and order, the matters be remanded
back, however, the learned Single Judge has directed the learned
Trial Court to grant the Appellant an opportunity to cross examine
the said witnesses and for that purpose to recall the witnesses and
thereafter on the basis of such evidence brought on record,
findings be recorded by the learned Trial Court and the said
findings be forwarded to this Court to enable this Court to consider
and decide the Appeal in proper perspective. The relevant
directions of the learned Single Judge are to be found from
paragraph Nos.6 to 9, which read as under:
“6. Though learned counsel for the appellant
seeks setting aside of the impugned Judgment
and Order and then to remand the matter, this
Court finds that during the trial no such
request was made and hence at this stage it
would not be appropriate to set aside the
Judgment and Order as it would not be
appropriate to go into merit of case and record
any findings. Instead ends of justice would
meet if the appellant is given an opportunity to
cross examine the above stated witnesses and
the Trial Court is called upon to record finding
upon such evidence brought on record. The
findings recorded by Trial Court be forwarded
Page 8
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
to this Court to enable this Court to consider
and decide the appeal in proper perspective.
7. Since the trial is of year 2019, the Trial
Court to complete the exercise of permitting
appellant to cross examine witnesses from PW-
1 to PW-9 and PW-11 and recording findings
within a period of 3 months from 1
st
December, 2025. It is clarified that no
extension on whatsoever ground shall be
given.
8. Advocate Mr. Gupta makes statement that
he would appear before the Trial Court on
behalf of the appellant /accused. It is clarified
in case appellant is not represented before the
Trial Court on any day without any justified
reason, it would be open for the Trial Court to
close the evidence of such witness who is
present before the Court.
9. The Trial Court not to get influenced with
the fact that the appeal is kept pending and it
would be duty of the Trial Court to record
finding on the basis of evidence brought on
record on the cross examination conducted of
these witnesses by appellant.”
(Emphasis added)
10.Pursuant to the above directions passed by the learned
Single Judge, the learned Designated Judge under the POCSO Act,
2012, Greater Bombay granted opportunity to the Appellant to
cross examine the witnesses and the learned
Page 9
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
Designated Judge recorded the findings by order dated 2
nd
May
2026 and forwarded the same to this Court. The learned
Designated Judge
inter alia recorded the findings that the
prosecution has failed to prove that the age of the victim girl was
minor at the time of incident. Similarly, the prosecution could not
establish the chain of collection and carrying the blood samples of
accused No.1 for forensic analysis and thus, DNA Report is not
acceptable against accused No.1. The Designated Judge has also
recorded the findings that the prosecution could not produce the
clear and cogent evidence to establish the identity of all the three
accused persons and the prosecution failed to raise the
presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against
accused No.1 that he committed rape on the minor victim girl, the
prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.2 and 3 have
abetted accused No.1 for committing rape on the victim girl. The
learned Designated Court further held that the evidence on record
is insufficient to attract the alleged allegations leveled against
accused Nos.1 to 3. In view of the said findings, the learned
Designated Judge answered the point Nos.1 to 8 in the negative.
The said point Nos.1 to 8 and the findings recorded by the learned
Designated Judge read as under:
Page 10
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
“SR.
NO
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the prosecution proves that
on 05/05/2019 at about 17:00 hours,
at Plot No.19, Road No.11, Near
Hakkani Masjid, Baiganwadi, Shivaji
Nagar, Govandi, Mumbai, accused
No.1 has committed rape upon victim
and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s.376 of IPC?
...No.
2. Whether the prosecution proves that
on the aforesaid date, time and place,
accused has committed criminal
intimidation and thereby committed
an offence punishable u/s. 506(ii) of
IPC?
...No.
3. Whether the prosecution proves that
on the aforesaid date, time and place,
accused No.2 and 3 agreed with
accused No.1 to do an illegal act of
committing rape upon victim and in
pursuance of the said agreement,
accused No.1 has committed rape
upon victim and thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s. 120-B of IPC?
...No.
4. Whether the prosecution proves that
on the aforesaid date, time and place,
accused No.2 and 3 abetted the
commission of offence of rape by
accused No.1 and thereby committed
an offence punishable u/s. 109 of IPC?
...No.
5. Whether the prosecution proves that
on the aforesaid date, time and place,
accused No.1 has committed
aggravated penetrative sexual assault
upon the minor victim girl, aged 17
years and thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s. 06 of POCSO
Act, 2012?
...No.
Page 11
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
6.Whether the prosecution proves that
on the aforesaid date, time and place,
accused No.1 has committed
aggravated sexual assault upon the
minor victim girl, aged 17 years with
sexual intent and thereby committed
an offence punishable u/s. 10 of
POCSO Act 2012?
...No.
7. Whether the prosecution proves that
on the aforesaid date, time and place,
accused Nos.2 and 3 abetted and
instigated the accused No.1 to commit
the offence of rape or by engaging
with him in conspiracy or intentionally
aided the accused No.1 for doing the
offence of rape upon the minor victim
girl, aged 17 years and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s.
17 of POCSO Act, 2012?
...No.
8. Whether the prosecution proves that
on the aforesaid date, time and place,
accused Nos.2 and 3 failed to report
the commission of an offence of rape
by accused No.1 and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s.
21 of the POCSO Act, 2012?
...No.”
11.Thus, the learned Designated Judge has held that the
prosecution has failed to prove that on 5
th
May 2019 at about
17:00 hours, accused No.1 has committed rape upon victim and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the
IPC, the prosecution failed to prove that accused has committed
criminal intimidation and thereby committed an offence
Page 12
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
punishable under Section 506(ii) of the IPC, the prosecution failed
to prove that accused Nos. 2 and 3 agreed with accused No.1 to do
an illegal act of committing rape upon victim and in pursuance of
the said agreement, accused No.1 has committed rape upon victim
and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B
of the IPC, the prosecution failed to prove that accused No.2 and 3
abetted the commission of offence of rape by accused No.1 and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 109 of the
IPC, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 has
committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the minor
victim girl, aged 17 years and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the
prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.2 and 3 abetted
and instigated the accused No.1 to commit the offence of rape or
by engaging with him in conspiracy or intentionally aided the
accused No.1 for doing the offence of rape upon the minor victim
girl, aged 17 years and thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the prosecution has
failed to prove that accused Nos.2 and 3 failed to report the
commission of an offence of rape by accused No.1 and thereby
Page 13
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
committed an offence punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO
Act, 2012.
12.In view of the said findings recorded by the learned
Designated Judge, it is the submission of the learned Counsels
appearing for the Appellants that the impugned judgment and
order of the conviction and imposing sentence be quashed and set
aside and the Appellants be acquitted.
13.On the other hand, it is the submission of Ms. Yadav, learned
APP appearing for the Respondent-State and the learned Counsel
appearing for Respondent No.2 that the matters be remanded back
to the learned Designated Judge for deciding the same afresh in
view of the evidence now before the learned Designated Court.
However, it is required to be noted that the learned Single Judge
by order dated 20
th
November 2025 has declined the said request
made on behalf of the Appellant for setting aside the impugned
judgment and order and remanding the matter back to the learned
Trial Court.
Page 14
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
14.However, there is some substance in the contention raised by
Ms. Yadav, learned APP and the learned Counsels appearing for
Respondent No.2 that if the Appeals are disposed of in view of the
findings recorded by the learned Designated Judge, then the State
of Maharashtra and Respondent No.2 will have no opportunity to
challenge the said findings recorded by the learned Designated
Court, on the basis of the evidence which was laid before the
learned Designated Court subsequently.
15.It is required to be noted that the findings which have been
recorded in the impugned judgment and order dated 17
th
June
2023 are directly contradictory to the findings now recorded by the
learned Designated Judge by order dated 2
nd
May 2026, pursuant
to directions dated 20
th
November 2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge. In the impugned judgment and order dated 17
th
June
2023, the learned Special Judge has
inter alia recorded that the
prosecution proved that accused No.1 committed rape upon the
victim and thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 376 of the IPC and accused Nos.2 and 3 agreed with
accused No.1 to do an illegal act of committing rape upon the
victim and finding on other points are recorded in favour of the
Page 15
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
prosecution and against the accused. However, it is required to be
noted that the said findings are recorded on the basis of the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, where most of the
prosecution witnesses were not cross examined and thus, the said
evidence without testing on the touchstone of the cross-
examination cannot be termed as legal evidence. Now after the
order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20
th
November
2025, an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses has been
given and after their cross examination is conducted, the learned
Trial Court has recorded the findings as set out hereinabove where
inter alia the learned Designated Court in the order dated 2
nd
May
2026 came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to
prove the prosecution case.
16.Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
i.The impugned judgment and order dated 17
th
June 2023 passed by the learned Special Judge under
Page 16
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
the POCSO Act, 2012 in POCSO Special Case No.491
of 2019 is quashed and set aside.
ii.It is directed that the said POCSO Special Case
No.491 of 2019 is disposed of in terms of the findings
recorded by the learned Designated Judge under the
POCSO Act, 2012 for Greater Bombay in order dated
2
nd
May 2026.
iii.Consequently, all Appellants are acquitted. The
Appellants be immediately released from the jail, if
they are not required in any other case.
iv.It is clarified that the Criminal Appeals are
disposed of in the above terms by directing that the
said POCSO Special Case No.491 of 2019 is disposed
of in terms of the order dated 2
nd
May 2026 passed by
the Designated Judge under the POCSO Act, 2012 for
Greater Bombay. Thus, the said order dated 2
nd
May
2026 passed by the learned Designated Judge under
the POCSO Act, 2012 for Greater Bombay can be
challenged by the State of Maharashtra or Respondent
Page 17
Sonali
905-APEAL-897-2023+.DOC
No.2 by filing appropriate Appeal, as it is specifically
clarified that the said POCSO Special Case No.491 of
2019 is disposed of in terms of the order dated 2
nd
May 2026 passed by the Designated Judge under the
POCSO Act, 2012.
v.The fine amounts imposed by the impugned
judgment and order dated 17
th
June 2023, if deposited
by the Appellants be returned back to the respective
Appellants.
17.Accordingly, all these Criminal Appeals are disposed of in the
above terms.
18.In view of the disposal of the Criminal Appeals, nothing
survives in the Interim Applications and the same are also disposed
of.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 18
Sonali
SONALI
MILIND
PATIL
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
MILIND
PATIL
Date:
2026.06.10
18:42:56
+0530
Legal Notes
Add a Note....