Bi- laspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Reservation Center, Sipat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 130 of 2021 1 - Preetam @ Bhola S/o Prahlad Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Nar- goda, Police Station- Sipat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bi- laspur, Chhattisgarh ....Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Reservation Center, Sipat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondent For Appellant : For Respondent/State : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani , Advocate Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble S hri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 22.01.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.12.2020 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Second FTC Special Court Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 111/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Section Sentenced to 363 of the IPC R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and, in default of payment of fine, addi- 376/511 of the IPC 2 tional R.I. for 4 months R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 20000/- and, in default of payment of fine, addi- tional R.I. for six months. All the sentences would run concur- rently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.08.2018 at around 1:00 pm the victim was playing after having food. At that time, Pritam @ Bhola/accused of her village came and took the victim to the roof of his house saying that he will make her eat and play with him and tried to rape the victim. After some time, the victim came home crying and told the mother of the victim about the incident. After that, she went to the police station sipat and reported the inci-
Legal Reasoning
dent. Thereafter the concerned police station registered the FIR for the of- fence punishable under Section 376 and 511 of the IPC and 8 of the POCSO Act against the appellant. After completion of investigation, the ap- pellant has been arrested. The charge-sheet was filed for the aforesaid of- fences against the appellant / accused before the competent Court against the appellant. 3. In order to bring home the above-stated offences, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses including the prosecutrix (PW-2). Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, in which he denied guilt and has taken the stand that he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, the accused/appellant examined no defense witness. 4. The learned Additional Session Judge, Second FTC Special Court Bilaspur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 09.12.2020, convicted the appellant for the offence 3 punishable under Section 363 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits he is not raising dispute with re- gard to the age of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix is minor at the time of incident. The prosecutrix has been medically examined by the Dr. Richa Ti- wari (PW-10) and the medical report has been exhibited as (Ex.P/8A) wherein it clearly shows that no sexual relationship developed with the pros- ecutrix and no injury was found on the external or internal part of the body of the victim and medical evidence did not support the contentions of the pros- ecutrix. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and on that basis, the appellants cannot be con- victed. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set-aside. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that considering the age of the appellant as appellant at present is aged about 26 years, as he is facing criminal trial since 2018 and as the appellant has already undergone 6 years and 6 months months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably to the period already undergone by him. He placed his reliance upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matter of Prabhuram Satnami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now CG) in CRA No. 3125 of 1998, the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the appellants herein as well. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Priya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for 4 the respondent/State, would support the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 5 years on the date of incident and the act committed by the appellant was extremely disgusting and of serious nature and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the of- fences punishable under Sections 363 and 376/511 of the IPC. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submis- sions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost cir- cumspection. 9. It is undisputed fact that the prosecutrix was aged about 5 years at the time of incident and she wass undoubtedly minor. 10. Prosecutrix (PW-2) has stated in her deposition that when she was playing, then the accused Bhola took her on a roof of his house where he disrobed her and tried to put his genital against her genital. (PW-1) Mother of the pros- ecutrix in her evidence made similar statement as has been stated by the prosecutrix. 11. From the above evidence, it would clearly appear that the prosecutrix has neither resiled from her version nor diluted the case against the appellant. Her version finds support from other witnesses, therefore, it is fully proved that the incident had happened wherein the appellant made her lie on roof and disrobed her and outraged her modesty. Nothing favourable to accused/appellant could be elicited in the cross-examination of prosecutrix and, in fact, she stuck to her version. Even otherwise, it is settled position of law that conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of prosecutrix. No 5 corroboration as a matter of law needs to be insisted. The prosecutrix being the victim of crime is required to be treated as an injured witness. The trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Section 376/511 of IPC and 363 of IPC. The finding of the trial Court is hereby afÏrmed and maintained. Sentence imposed by the trial Court under Section 363 of IPC is hereby afÏrmed and maintained. 12. As regards sentence under Section 376/511 of IPC, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed by the trial Court under Section 376/511 of IPC appears to excessively on the higher side and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that if the sentence imposed upon him i.e. 10 years u/s 376/511 of IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. Thus, the sentence imposed under Section 376/511 is reduced to 7 years. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 13. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. 15. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.01.31 10:58:30 +0530