State of Chhattisgarh v. Titraram Netam), by the Additional Sessions Judge
Case Details
Page No.1 of 8 IN CRA-1352-2019 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:6495-DB NAFR Criminal Appeal No. 1352 of 20 19 [Arising out of judgment dated 22.08.2019, passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.03 of 2019 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Titraram Netam), by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)/Special Judge (POCSO Act), North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.)] Titraram Netam, Son of Siyaram Netam, aged about 24 years, Resident of Village Bhimadih, Patalpara, Police Outpost- Dudhawa, Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ---- Appellant (In Jail) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Outpost- Dudhawa, Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate ---- Respondent For Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer : Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and e Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Hon'ble Shri Justic Judgment on Board (05.02.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J (1) This criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant under Section 374(2) of CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.08.2019, passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.03 of 2019 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Titraram Netam), by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Page No.2 of 8 IN CRA-1352-2019 Court)/Special Judge, constituted under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the “POCSO Act”), North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction U/s. 376(2)(n) of IPC U/s. 376-AB of IPC Sentence Imprisonment for life (till natural death) with fine of Rs.50,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. Imprisonment for life (till natural death) with fine of Rs.50,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. [Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently] (2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 21.11.2018, at about 04:30 PM in the evening, in his own house, situated at Village Bhimadih, which comes within the ambit of Police Outpost- Dudhawa, Police Station Narharpur, the accused-appellant herein committed repeated sexual intercourse with the minor victim (PW-02), aged about 07 years (i.e. below 12 years of age) and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offences. (3) The further case of the prosecution is that when mother of the victim (PW-01) reported the matter to the police, FIR (Ex.P/01 & Ex.P/29) was registered by the police against the appellant and wheels of investigation started running, in which, site map was prepared vide Ex.P/09. Victim’s statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded vide Ex.P/11. After obtaining necessary consent vide Ex.P/02, the victim (PW-02) was subjected to medical examination, Page No.3 of 8 IN CRA-1352-2019 which was conducted by Dr. Seema Singh (PW-09) and, as per her MLC report Ex.P/03, it has been opined that on internal examination, injuries were found over the body of the victim (PW-02) and, on the basis of which, it has been mentioned that sexual contact on her may be possible. Further, victim’s vaginal slide were also prepared and handed over to the police alongwith her undergarment for analysis, which were seized vide Ex.P/04. The accused-appellant was arrested and sent for medical examination. Appellant’s MLC report is Ex.P/22 and his undergarment was also seized vide Ex.P/18. Certain other articles were also seized from the spot vide Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/14. Thereafter, the aforesaid seized articles were sent for chemical analysis and, as per FSL report (Ex.P/27) it has been opined that no stains of human sperm/semen were found on any of the aforesaid seized articles. Further, in order to ascertain correct age of the victim (PW-02), copy of relevant page of her admission register (Ex.P/29) was also obtained/seized, wherein her date of birth has been recorded as 30.09.2011, meaning thereby, the victim (PW-02) was minor aged about 07 years (i.e. less than 12 years) on the date of offence. The victim (PW-02) was also subjected to radiology examination and, as per her X-ray report (Ex.P/37), it has been opined that the bone age of the victim (PW-02) is between 5-7 years. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in Page No.4 of 8 IN CRA-1352-2019 which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. (4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents, whereas the appellant in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. (5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) & 376AB of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (6) Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He further submits that the testimony of the victim (PW-02) is not reliable and trustworthy. The medical evidence and forensic evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. In alternative, learned counsel further submits that though the maximum sentence of imprisonment of life has been awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court for offence under Section 376(2)(n) & 376-AB of IPC, but neither any special reason nor any extra-ordinary Page No.5 of 8 IN CRA-1352-2019 circumstance has been recorded by the learned trial Court for awarding maximum punishment to the appellant. Furthermore, at the time of commission of the offence, the appellant was aged about 24 years and, except this case, he has no other criminal antecedents and he has also not committed any jail offence, which aspect has not at all been considered by the learned trial Court. As such, considering the aforesaid aspect coupled with the fact that the minimum punishment prescribed for offence under Section 376-AB is 20 years RI, the sentence of the appellant for the said offences be also reduced/modified accordingly. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. (7) Per-contra, learned State counsel would submit that prosecution has been able to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that in view of statement of the victim (PW- 02), wherein she has clearly narrated the incident and implicated appellant herein to be the author of the crime in question coupled with other evidence available on record i.e. MLC report of the victim (Ex.P/03), the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences mentioned herein-above. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. (8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Page No.6 of 8 IN CRA-1352-2019 (9) In the instant case, considering the statement of the victim (PW- 02), wherein she has clearly narrated the incident in question and implicated the appellant herein to be the author of the crime by stating that on the date and time of the offence, the appellant took the victim (PW-02) to his house and, thereafter, removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse with her. It is also stated by the victim (PW-02) that the appellant has also committed the same act with her near Nursery. The aforesaid statement of the victim (PW-02) has duly been supported by her mother (PW-01), who reported the matter to the police and lodged FIR. Further, the victim (PW-02) was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but she remained consistent in her version and, therefore, her testimony appears to be reliable and inspire confidence. The said version of the victim (PW-02) is also supported by medical evidence available on record i.e. MLC report of the victim (Ex.P/03), wherein it has clearly been opined that on internal examination, injuries were found over the body of the victim (PW-02) and, on the basis of which, it has been said that sexual contact on her may be possible, which is duly supported by the statement of Dr. Seema Singh (PW-09), who has medically examined the victim (PW-02). Further according to the school admission register of the victim (Ex.P29), her date of birth has been recorded as 30.09.2011, meaning thereby, the victim (PW-02) was minor aged about 07 (i.e. less than 12 years) on the date of offence. Moreover, as per X-ray report (Ex.P/37) of the victim also, her bone age has been opined to be between 05-07 years. As such, on the basis of aforesaid Page No.7 of 8 IN CRA-1352-2019 evidence available on record, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant is guilty of having committed repeated sexual intercourse on the minor victim (PW-02), who was aged about less than 12 years, is strictly in accordance with law. We do not find any illegality or perversity in findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. (10) Now the question would be whether the learned trial Court is justified in awarding sentence for imprisonment for life to the appellant for having committed offence under Sections 376(2)(n) & 376-AB of IPC or same can be modified/reduced otherwise ? (11) In order to answer this plea, it would be first relevant to notice Section 376-AB of IPC, which reads as under: “376AB. Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age- Whoever, commits rape on a woman under twelve years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and with fine or with death: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.” (12) In view of the above-stated provision since the minimum sentence prescribed for offence under Section 376-AB of IPC is 20 years and the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, where neither any special reason nor any extra-ordinary Page No.8 of 8 IN CRA-1352-2019 circumstance has been recorded by the learned trial Court for awarding maximum punishment to the appellant and, at the time of commission of the offence, the appellant was aged about 24 years and, no evidence has been brought on record to show that except this case, the appellant has any other criminal antecedent and or he has committed any jail offence post conviction, while affirming the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) & 376-AB of IPC, we deem it appropriate to sentence him for a period of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for both the offences by modifying/reducing it from imprisonment for life. However, the fine sentence and default stipulation, as imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court, alongwith the direction that both the sentences to run concurrently, shall remain intact. (13) Consequently, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. (14) Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and action. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge s@if