Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35387-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1261 of 2023 Pramod Kumar Jha S/o Late Anant Jha, Aged About 63 Years R/o Paradise Colony, House No. 149, Mopka, Police Station Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Appellant State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)/Appellant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Mr. Akshat Tripathi, and Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23/07/2025 1
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Mr. Akshat Tiwari and Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent. 2 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.04.2023 passed by the learned First F.T.S.C. (POCSO) / Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Special Sessions 2 Trial No. 203/2021 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Rigorous Fine Section imprisonment 3 years Rs. 250/- Default Sentence 4 months R.I. more 20 years (two counts) Rs. 500 (two counts) 5 – 5 years R.I. more 506-II of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) 5(m) and (n) / 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, POCSO Act) All the sentences to run concurrently. 3 In order to maintain confidentiality of the identity of the victims, they are being referred to as ‘A-1 and A-2’ and the place of incident is being referred to as the place of incident mentioned in the First Information Report (Exhibit P/13). 4 The convict/appellant-Pramod Kumar Jha, was charged under Sections 377, 506- II IPC and Section 5 (m) and (n) / 6 of the POCSO Act alleging that between 12.11.2018 and 01.10.2021, he committed unnatural sexual act with minor victim A-1 age-8 years 17 days and minor victim A-2 age-09 years 08 months 19 days residing at the place of incident mentioned in the First Information Report, Police Station- Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, against the order of nature, by voluntarily having sensual pleasure through their anus, caused criminal intimidation by threatening to kill them and committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on them despite being their grandfather/ guardian 5 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the father (PW-6) of the victim A-1 and A-2, being a native of area falling under Police Station Kishanganj, District Madhepura, Bihar resided with his family at the place mentioned in the FIR, within the Police Station-Sarkanda, District 3 Bilaspur. The complainant (PW-6) has two sons, namely victim-A-1 and A-2, aged 10 and 12 years. Complainant’s father/accused Pramod Kumar Jha lived separately with his mother in Bilaspur where he kept visiting with his sons and wife on every holiday and other works. On 01.10.2021, his children/victims A-1 and A-2 told him that their grandfather/accused had established unnatural sexual relations with them for about 02-03 years, used to put his penis in their anus and used to do bad things every day by making them sleep near him, used to take them to bathroom for bathing and used to do bad things. When the victims said that they would inform the incident to the complainant, the appellant threatened them that he would kill their parents. 6 After registration of the FIR, during investigation, on 12.11.2021, consent (Exhibit P/14) was taken from the father (PW-6) of the victims for medically examining the victims and the victims were sent to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur along with constable Santosh Rathore along with MLC forms (Exhibit P/20A and 21A) and thereafter, report was obtained vide Exhibits P/20 and P/21. 7 Performance Profile of victims Season 18-19, Performance Profile Season 20-21/Marks List Article A and B were seized from the father of the victims in presence of witnesses as per seizure memo Exhibit P/1, Child Line was informed about the rape of victims and in this regard, on giving application, Ex.P-26 by the complainant, consent was taken from them for counselling of the victims, and counselling of victims was done in presence of mother of the victims and after taking written permission (Exhibit P/5 and P/7) from them, counselling report (Exhibit P/4 and P/6) were sent along with report Exhibit P/27. IUCAW, Bilaspur, was sent a memo (Exhibit P/23) for recording the statement of victims under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and their statements Exhibit P/18 and P/19 were 4 attached. The appellant/convict was arrested in presence of witnesses as per arrest memo (Exhibit P/16) and after giving information to his family members vide Exhibit P/17, he was sent to CIMS Hospital Bilaspur along with constable Ramesh Devangan along with examination form (Exhibit P/34) for examination and after examination, the report (Exhibit P/34A) was attached. On 13.11.2021 the victims were sent to District Hospital Bilaspur with OPD slip and after examination, reports (Exhibit P/36 and P/37) were attached. After visiting the place of incident and inspecting the spot, spot map (Exhibit P/15) was prepared as per information given by the father of the victims. For recording of the statements of the victims under Section 164 Cr.P.C, memo (Exhibit P/33) was sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and the statement of the victim A-1 and A-2 were recorded vide Exhibit P/2 and P/8. The Tahsildar, Bilaspur, was requested to direct the Patwari concerned for preparation of the spot map vide memo Exhibit P/24 and the spot map was prepared vide Exhibit P/25. For providing the Admission / Discharge register, the Principal of the concerned school was issued memo vide Exhibit P/28 on 26.11.2021 and the said register was seized vide sezure memo Exhibit P/29 from the Incharge, Gopal Naidu and its certified copy was obtained vide Exhibit P/30C and P/31C and the original register was handed back on Supurdnama (Exhibit P/32). On 21.11.2021, the grandmother and uncle (Chacha) of the victims were given notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. vide Exhibit P/10 and P/35. The statement of the Uncle, grandmother, mother, father and witness Dinu Sahu were recorded as stated by them vide Exhibit P/9 and P/11. 8 After completion of the investigation, the police filed its charge sheet against the appellant/convict before the learned trial Court for the 5 offences under Sections 377, 506-II, IPC and Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 9 Charges were also framed by the learned trial Court under Sections 377, 506-II IPC and Sections 5(m)/6 and 5(n)/6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 10 In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined victims' mother (PW-1) victim A-1 (PW-2), victim A-2 (PW-3), victims' uncle (PW-4), victims' grandmother (PW-5), victims' father (PW-6), Deenu Kumar Sahu (PW-7), Inspector Durgakiran Patel (PW-8), Patwari Jeet Kumar Patel (PW-9), Coordinator Sandeep Rao Mohte (PW-10), Gopal Naidu (PW-11), D. Rajeshwari (PW-12), Manoj Patel (PW-13), Dr. Raghuraj Singh (PW-14), Pinki Mishra (PW-15), and Dr. Devanshu Gupta (PW-16) and exhibited as many as 37 Exhibits and 2 Articles. 11 The statement of the convict/appellant was recorded under section 313 CrPC wherein he has expressed his ignorance about most of the questions, however, some of them were denied as well. He stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated. In defence, the appellant examined two witnesses namely Rakesh Singh (DW-1) and Dayanand Sahu (DW-2). 12 The learned trial Court, after considering the statement of witnesses and evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/ accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 13 Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant/convict submits that the entire prosecution story is concocted and is a figment of imagination. No grandfather would commit such a heinous crime against his own grand sons. In fact, there was a dispute between the convict and his son i.e. the complainant in this case. The victims never complaint 6 anything against the appellant and they continued to visit each other’s house regularly. The FIR was also lodged by the father of the victim with delay of about 40 days of the incident said to have occurred. There is no eye witness to the incident and the case rests solely on circumstantial evidence which is also not corroborated by any other supporting material. Even the Doctors who have examined the victims, did not found any injuries on the body of the victims which makes the story of the prosecution more doubtful. The victims though are minor but they are not so young so as to not understand the crime in question. The victims were all the time free and could have informed their parents had such incident really occurred. The victims have deposed against the appellant/convict merely under the pressure of the complainant who happens to be their father and also under the pressure of their mother. The relationship between the parents of the victim and the appellant was not cordial as the father of the victims had performed marriage with a lady of his own choice and as such, the possibility of false implication cannot be overlooked. Hence, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges. 14 On the other hand, Mr. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent submits that the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the convict/appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph. There is ample evidence on record to hold the appellant guilty of the offence. The order passed by the learned trial Court needs no interference and the appeal filed by the convict/appellant be dismissed. 15 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7 16 The issue with regard to the victims being a minor is not at all disputed in this case and as such, in order to avoid repetition, this Court does not wish to discuss the said aspect which has duly been proved by oral and documentary evidences that the victims were aged about 8 years 17 days and 9 years 19 days, respectively, on the date of incident. 17 The sole question that arises in this appeal is whether the appellant, who happens to be the real grandfather of the victims A-1 and A-2 had committed unnatural sex against them. In this regard, the statement of the victims are of utmost importance. Victim A-1 though has deposed before the Court that the appellant had committed unnatural sex with him in the examination-in-chief, however, in cross examination, he stated that even after the incident, he used to visit the house of the appellant sometimes with his parents and sometimes alone also. He has also stated that he used to go to the house of the appellant because he like their house and had very good relationship with his grandfather i.e. the appellant. 18 Victim A-2 has deposed that in the last year, when he had gone to the appellant’s house, the appellant had committed unnatural sex with him by inserting his penis into his anus and he had committed such act two times with him. When this incident happened, the victim was in pain and when he tried to wake up his grandmother, she did not woke up and the appellant had gagged his mouth with his palm. 19 The uncle (Chacha) (PW-4) of the victims has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile. On the contrary, he has submitted that the father of the victims had pressurized him to anyhow send the appellant behind the bars. 20 Though the mother (PW-1) and father of the victims (PW-6) have fully 8 supported the prosecution case, however, except for the deposition of the victims and their parents, there is nothing conclusive on record to suggest that any such incident had actually occurred. Exhibit P/20 and P/21 are the MLC reports of the victim A-1 and A-2. During examination, Dr. Devanshu Gupta, Medical OfÏcer, CIMS, Bilaspur did not found any abnormality and everything was normal. No injury or scar marks were found on the body of the victims. He had advised to contact paediatric surgeon further investigation. Dr. Raghuraj Singh, Assistant Professor, Surgery Department, CIMS, Bilaspur has also examined the anus of the victims and given his report (Exhibit P/36 and P/37) wherein he did not found any injuries. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has taken a plea that the father (PW-6) of the victims was jealous of his other brother and sister and that PW-6 had married a woman of his own choice and used to act as per her wishes. Had he committed any offence against his own grandsons, they would never had visited his house but the victims were giving false deposition against him on being tutored by their mother. 21 Though the allegations levelled against the appellant is very heinous, however, this Court has to see whether the conviction can be based merely on the basis of deposition made by the victims and their father. The victims themselves have stated that they used to visit the house of the appellant who is their grandfather and the appellant also used to visit their house whenever there was holiday or any work. The victims used to sleep with their own mother and not alongwith the appellant. The deposition made by the victims does not inspire confidence and appears to be a tutored one. The son of the appellant, who is the father of the victims, had married a lady of his own choice and as such, it was quite 9 natural to have some differences in the family and the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. As such, it would be very dangerous to sustain the conviction of the appellant solely on the basis of deposition made by the witnesses and in absence of any corroborative material in the form of MLC report, or FSL report which may suggest occurrence of any such incident. 22 Another aspect of the matter is that the victims are not so young so as to not understand the things. Had the incident of such nature occurred, they were free to inform about the incident to their parents which has not been done in this case and a plea has been taken that they were threatened by the appellant. It is not a case where the appellant was continuously residing with the victims and their parents but the appellant used to visit their house on occasion of holidays and similarly, the victims also used to visit the house of the appellant alongwith their parents. They never raised any hue or cry that they do not want to go to their grandfather’s house and on the contrary, the victims have stated that sometimes they used to go to the appellant’s house alone. If a child is subjected to such inhuman behaviour, the normal course would have been that the child would always feel scared to visit such place where he could be the victim of such offence but the victims used to visit the house of the appellant frequently and freely. 23
Decision
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court needs interference and as such, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.04.2023 is hereby set aside and the appellant/convict Pramod Kumar Jha, is acquitted of the charges. 24 Resultantly, this appeal stands allowed. 10 25 The appellant/convict is reported to be in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. However, keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. {Section 481 of the BNSS}, the accused-appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount before the court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. 26 Registry is directed to transmit the trial court record along with a copy of this order to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.26 14:43:43 +0530