1 2025:CGHC:5298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1340 of 2021 Tejram Yadav S/o Late Lakhanlal Yadav Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Near Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Rajkishore Nagar, Police Station-Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ...Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Ms. Puspha Dwivedi, Advocate (Legal Aid). For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 29.01.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.10.2021, passed in Special Session Case No.107/2020 by learned Session Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Bilaspur, (CG), whereby appellant stands convicted and 2 sentence as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 354 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 years & fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, 04 months additional RI. Under Section 506 (Part-II) of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 years & fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, 04 months additional RI. Under Section 9(L) (M)(N)/10 of the POCSO Act. Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years & fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year additional RI. Under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year & fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, 04 months additional RI. All the sentence run concurrently 2. The present appeal was filed in the year 2021. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant in pre-lunch session when the matter was called out for hearing, therefore, I requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate is nominated to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. 3 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that present appellant, who is uncle ( बड़े पापा) of the minor victim/prosecutrix has tried to outrage her modesty on many occasions. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested. 4. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 11 witnesses. Statement of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that she is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining her argument to the quantum of sentence only. She submits that date of incident 4 is of 03.10.2020, appellant is in jail since 27.10.2021 and thereby he has already served more than 03 and a half year out of 05 years of jail sentence, he is not having any previous criminal antecedent, he is having family behind him, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the nature of offence, leniency should not be shown to appellant. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that age of the victim/prosecutrix is not in dispute. 11. With regard to the incident, it has been alleged by PW-1/victim that the appellant/accused is her uncle (बड़े पापा). The incident occurred about a year ago and at that time she used to live with her uncle and Aunti ( बड़ी अम्मी) at Dayalband, Bilaspur. The appellant/accused used to touch her body and chest in the house and talk about giving money, he repeated the same on one or two occasions and she could not say anything to him due to fear. She further stated that when she used to sleep, appellant tried to sleep upon her and also tried to take off her clothes. She also 5 stated that appellant threatened her that if she discloses the said incident to anyone, he will kill her. She further stated that she told about the incident to one Pooja Didi who is her neighbour, then she called her grandmother and, thereafter, FIR has been lodged against the appellant/accused. 12. PW-2/Pooja Yadav (neighbour) in her evidence has stated that she knows the appellant, he is her neighbour. On 03.10.2020, victim came to her and told that appellant- accused was trying to do something by holding her hand and chest and same has been doing for the last two years. She further submits that victim also said her that when she told the appellant that she would tell the incident to her Aunti ( बड़ी अम्मी), he threatened to kill her. The victim also told that the accused used to talk about giving money, if she allowed him to do wrong things with her. The victim further told that the accused did this type of incident/thing with her two-three times when no one was at home. 13. The version of the victim is also supported by brother and mother of Pooja Yadav (PW-3/Paleshwar Yadav & PW-4/Smt. Ganesh Yadav). 14. Considering facts of the case, nature of offence, relation between the appellant and the victim, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the evidence of PW-1/victim and her neighbour Pooja Yadav (PW-2) and 6 other material/evidence available on record, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for the aforementioned offence/crime, therefore, there is no need to interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the appellant/accused. 15. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-