1 2025:CGHC:5079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 543 of 2021 Mohan Lakara S/o Munna Lakara Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Bisunpur, Kanya Parisar Road,ambikapur, Police Station, Gandhinagar, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 28.01.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 27.11.2020, passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.84/2019 by learned Session Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act), Ambikapur, Distt- Surguja, (CG), whereby appellant stands convicted and 2 sentence as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Rigorous imprisonment for 4 years & fine of amount Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine 01 month additional RI. U/s 366 of IPC RI for 05 years & fine of amount Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine 01 month additional RI. U/s 5(m)/6 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act. RI for 10 years & fine of amount Rs.8,000/-, in default of payment of fine 06 months additional RI. U/s 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. RI for 05 years & fine of amount Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine 02 months additional RI. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.12.2019 complainant (mother of prosecutrix) lodged report in the concerned Police Station stating that present appellant has tried to outrage the modesty of her minor daughter, who was aged about 09 year and studying in Class 3rd. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 366(A), 376, 511 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act and he has been arrested. 3 3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforementioned offence/crime. Trial Court convicted the appellant solely on the basis of presumption. There is no specific evidence/material available to connect the appellant with crime in question. There are many contradiction and omission in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which were not considered properly by the trial Court. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable 4 doubt, therefore, present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant herein is liable be acquitted/discharged from the aforementioned charge/offence. Alternatively, it is argued that if the Court finds that alleged incident/offence has been committed by the appellant, then considering his detention i.e, since 17.12.2019 and the fact that he is not having any previous criminal incident, the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of material and evidence available on record and the same requires no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 9. The victim (PW-2) in her evidence has stated she is aged about 10 years. Mother of victim (PW-1) in her evidence has stated that date of birth of victim is 07.05.2009 and she was studying in class 3rd at the Primary School, Bisunpur. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the defence/appellant has not disputed/challenge the age of the victim neither before 5 the trial Court nor before this Court. 11. With regard to the alleged incident, it has been stated by victim (PW-2) in her Court statement that on the alleged date of incident, when the School was off, she was returning to her house. On the way, the present appellant met with her and took her to his house by motorcycle and, thereafter, took her in his room and removed her all clothes and touched his mouth with her mouth, pressed her chest and repeatedly touched his private part to her private part and also touched her whole body. 12. Mother of the victim (PW-1) in her evidence has stated that on the date of alleged incident, when she was searching for her daughter, she saw that appellant along with his son brought her daughter on motorcycle and dropped her near her house. 13. PW7/Dr. Manorma Minj, who examined the victim has stated in her evidence that during examination she has not found any injury on the body of the victim and hymen of victim is intact. 14. Considering facts of the case, nature of offence, submissions of counsel for the parties, the fact that appellant has tried to outrage the modesty of minor victim, further considering the statement of victim recorded under 6 Section 164 of Cr.PC, FIR (Ex-P/1) and FSL report (Ex.C-1) which is negative, particularly Court evidence of victim and her mother (PW-2 & PW-1) and other evidence/material 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. 15. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that appellant is in jail since 17.12.2019 and thereby he has already served more than 05 years of jail sentence and he is not having any previous criminal incident, appellant is aged about 30 years and having family behind him, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 10 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellants is reduced from RI 10 years to RI 07 years. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant under aforementioned offence, the sentence imposed upon him by trial Court is reduced from RI for 10 years to RI 07 years. However, fine amount imposed on appellant is remain intact. 7 17. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-