Jagannath Pandurang Waghare vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

ik-13685963 Bombay High Court 17 December 2025 • 25 min read

Judges (2)

Manish Pitale Delivered Manjusha Deshpande Coram

Counsel (3)

Pawan Mali Counsel Appellant Rohan Surve Counsel Respondent Sharmila S. Kaushik Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

State of Maharashtra Respondent Jagannath Pandurang Waghare Appellant

Case Significance

Jagannath Pandurang Waghare vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. is a Bombay High Court decision dated December 17, 2025 (citation: ik-13685963). The appellant father challenged his conviction for rape of his own minor daughter under Section 376(2)(f) and (i) IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) and (l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment (remainder of natural life). The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, finding that the 2013 amendment to Section 376(2) IPC mandates that imprisonment for life in cases of rape of a minor by a person in a position of trust means impri The bench comprised Justices Manish Pitale and Manjusha Deshpande. The judgment was delivered by Justice Manish Pitale. Counsel appearing: Pawan Mali (counsel for appellant), Rohan Surve (counsel for respondent), Sharmila S. Kaushik (counsel for respondent).

Summary

The appellant father challenged his conviction for rape of his own minor daughter under Section 376(2)(f) and (i) IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) and (l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment (remainder of natural life). The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, finding that the 2013 amendment to Section 376(2) IPC mandates that imprisonment for life in cases of rape of a minor by a person in a position of trust means imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and the sentencing guidelines for sub-section (1) cannot be applied to sub-section (2).

What was the outcome of Jagannath Pandurang Waghare vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr.?

The appellant father challenged his conviction for rape of his own minor daughter under Section 376(2)(f) and (i) IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) and (l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, for which he wa...

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official India Courts portal.

Read on Indian Kanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (ik-13685963)