Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2018
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2022-0033Mumbai City, MaharashtraJudgment 23 November 2022
Vilas Shantaram Kaldhone v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. On 7 May 2014 a 17-year-old boy who had left home after a quarrel accepted a motorcycle lift near Shanmukhananda Hall, Sion, from Vilas Kaldhone, who said he was police personnel; Kaldhone took him to a building terrace and sexually assaulted him at knifepoint. PW-10 deposed that Kaldhone was a constable who had been suspended from service much before the incident. The trial court convicted him under Section 377 IPC, Section 506 Part I IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act with 10-year concurrent terms on 12 April 2018. The court held the DNA match on the victim's underwear clinching, rejected the defence claim of semen collection at the police station, and maintained the conviction while reducing the substantive sentences to the 8-plus years already undergone, above the then 7-year POCSO minimum, citing good jail conduct. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 23 November 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2018, the Bombay High Court (Coram: Sarang V. Kotwal, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Vilas Shantaram Kaldhone (Constable).
- Register number
- MH 01 CW 0036
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2018
- Court and date
- Bombay High Court (Coram: Sarang V. Kotwal, J.), 23 November 2022
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Vilas Shantaram Kaldhone (Constable)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “All these factors considered together or even separately, point unerringly to the guilt of the appellant. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.” (at para 25)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Bombay High Court judgment dated 23 November 2022 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“All these factors considered together or even separately, point unerringly to the guilt of the appellant. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.” (para 25)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
23 Nov 2022
Order issued
ConcludedThe Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2018
Not yet re-checked.
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.