The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for sexually assaulting a minor girl, ruling that the child’s testimony was trustworthy and supported by medical and witness evidence.
Justice R.M. Joshi dismissed the appeal filed by Pradip Prakash Baikar, confirming the trial court’s judgment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Enhances Accident Compensation to ₹6 Lakh for Court Employee
Background of the Case
The case dates back to August 2013. According to the prosecution, the mother of the victim approached Ghatkopar Police Station after her daughter complained of stomach pain and disclosed that a neighbour had sexually assaulted her a few days earlier.
The child told her mother that the accused had called her to his house on the pretext of offering food and then committed sexual assault. The police registered a case, recorded statements, conducted medical examination, and filed a chargesheet.
In 2022, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(i) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment - the minimum punishment prescribed for the offence.
Challenging this conviction, the accused moved the High Court.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Reinstates KSRTC Guard, Says No Termination Without Proper Inquiry and Fair
Arguments Before the Court
The defence argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence. It was submitted that the victim could not clearly state the exact date and time of the incident. The counsel also pointed to the medical report, which did not show external or genital injuries, and noted that the doctor had not expressly stated that sexual assault had taken place.
It was further argued that the victim’s testimony lacked “sterling quality” and that there was no reliable corroboration.
On the other hand, the State and the counsel representing the victim maintained that minor discrepancies in a child’s testimony cannot override the substance of the case. They emphasised that the victim was a minor and that her evidence was consistent on material aspects.
The prosecution also relied on the testimony of a neighbour who had seen the girl accompanying the accused on the relevant day.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Orders Cancellation of OBC Certificate of Gram Panchayat Pradhan
Court’s Observations
Justice Joshi observed that in cases under the POCSO Act, courts must give due importance to the testimony of the child victim.
The Court noted that the victim’s date of birth was proved through documentary evidence, and there was no challenge to her age. She was therefore a “child” under the POCSO Act.
Addressing the argument that the victim could not state the exact date of the incident, the bench said this was not fatal to the prosecution case.
“The victim has specifically narrated the manner in which the incident occurred. Her evidence remains unaffected in cross-examination,” the Court observed.
The High Court found that her account was supported by an independent witness who had seen her going with the accused. The medical evidence, though not showing injuries, recorded redness in the private part. The Court noted that this finding supported the allegation of sexual assault.
The bench remarked, “Merely because there is no opinion expressed by the Medical Officer with regard to sexual assault, the case does not become fit for acquittal.”
The Court also rejected the defence theory of false implication. It noted that different and inconsistent suggestions were made during cross-examination regarding alleged disputes between the accused and the victim’s family.
“It is clear that the defence is suggesting different reasons for alleged false implication... there is no substance in the said defence,” the Court said.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Partly Allows Discharge Plea in 498A Case, Drops Attempt to Homicide Charge
Presumption Under POCSO
The Court further referred to the legal presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Once the basic facts of the offence are established, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption.
In this case, the Court held that the accused failed to rebut this presumption either through effective cross-examination or by leading defence evidence.
“The entire evidence on record shows that the evidence of victim before the Trial Court is consistent with her previous statement,” the Court recorded.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Orders Statewide Audit of 31 Old Age Homes, Seeks Report on Facilities by Feb 15
Decision
At the final stage, the defence sought a reduction in sentence to the period already undergone. However, the prosecution opposed this, pointing out that the offence carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.
Agreeing with this submission, the Court held that there was no scope for interference with the sentence.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court dismissed it and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Case Title: Pradip Prakash Baikar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2022
Decision Date: 25 February 2026
