1 2025:CGHC:43114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1772 of 2022 Dhaneshwar Dhruv @ Chhotu S/o Durga Prasad Dhruv Aged About 27 Years R/o Sakin - Odan, Police Station Palari District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Incharge Palari, Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 25/08/2025 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Court of Upper District and Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C (POCSO Act) Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar, Bhatapara (C.G.) passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No.74/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in following manner :- AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 354(a) of Indian Penal Code RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 354(d) of Indian Penal Code RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. (All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.10.2021 a report was lodged by the minor victim aged 16 years, who was studying in Class XI. It was stated that her parents had gone out for work. On 04.10.2021, after the school was over at about 3:00 PM, while she was returning home along with her friends Hema Rai, Rajeshwari Banjare, Hemlata Verma and Neetu Dhruv, on reaching in front of the school, someone came from behind and pulled her dupatta. When she turned around, she saw that it was Dhaneshwar Dhruv @ Chhotu, a boy from her village, who, with the intention of insulting her, caught hold of her hands and arms and misbehaved with her by saying that he loves her. When her friends and others objected, he got scared and ran away. She then went home and narrated the incident to her uncle and aunt. On the next day, i.e., 05.10.2021, when she was again returning home after school, the accused Dhaneshwar Dhruv, in front of the school, once more pulled her dupatta, caught her hands and arms 3 with the intent to insult her and repeated the words that he loves her, due to which she got very frightened. On her raising alarm, the accused fled towards the village. She went home and informed her uncle and aunt, who in turn told Sarpanch Smt. Rajkumari Kamal and Kotwar Roshan Manikpuri about the incident. On the basis of the report of the minor victim, Crime No. 544/2021 was registered against the accused Dhaneshwar Dhruv @ Chhotu under Section 354(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Investigation commenced. During investigation, the statements of the victim and other relevant witnesses were recorded. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer prepared the site map. The age of the victim was verified and her school certificate issued by the Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education was seized, which confirmed that she was a minor. After completion of the investigation, finding sufficient evidence, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused Dhaneshwar Dhruv @ Chhotu under Section 354(b) of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. 3. On perusal of the prosecution case and the accompanying documents, the Court found that prima facie charges under Sections 354(a), 354(d) of IPC and Section of 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were made out 4 against the accused, upon which charges were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The learned Upper District and Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO Act), Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar, Bhatapara (C.G.) after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide impugned judgment dated 04.11.2022, the trial Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence of outraging the modesty of the victim by pulling her dupatta, catching her hands, and making indecent remarks. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish with certainty that the victim was a minor, as no conclusive documentary proof of age was produced. Accordingly, the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 11 of POCSO Act, 2012, but was convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been filed by the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to conviction recorded by the trial Court and confines his submissions only to the quantum of sentence. It is further submitted that the trial Court has imposed the maximum sentence of one year under Section 354(d) of IPC. The appellant has already undergone incarceration of 6 days during trial and has deposited the fine amount imposed upon him. Considering his age i.e. 30 years, background, and the period of custody undergone, it is 5 prayed that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone, subject to enhancement of fine. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 8. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 354(a) and 354(d) of IPC is based on proper appreciation of evidence and no infirmity is found in the finding of conviction. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is affirmed. 9. However, as regards the quantum of sentence, it is to be noted that the appellant has already suffered 6 days’ incarceration and has deposited the fine amount as imposed by the trial Court. Taking into consideration the age of the appellant i.e. 30 years, the period of jail sentence suffered by him, agony of criminal trial and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, with enhancement of the fine amount. 10. Accordingly, fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- under Section 354(a) of IPC and from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- under Section 354(d) of IPC. The enhanced fine amount shall be 6 deposited by the appellant within a period of two months from today before the concerned trial Court. The same shall be disbursed to Government Specialized Adoption Agency, Bemetara (C.G.). The fine, if any, already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. 11. In case of default in depositing the enhanced fine within the stipulated period, the trial Court shall take the appellant into custody in accordance with law to further undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the trial Court. 12. The instant appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 13. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil