1 2025:CGHC:16300 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 39 of 2016 1 - Yoga Baba @ Dharmendra Das @ Shushil Das S/o Kanchedi Lal Lodhi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Patna, Police Station And Post Office Bahoriband, District Katni, Madhya Pradesh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms.Isha Jajodia, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 07/04/2025 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) in Special Criminal Case No. 36/2015 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual 2 Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo RI for 3yers and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that written report was lodged by the father of the proselcutrix at police station Bhakhra alleging that on 28.09.2015 at about 8.30 am, the appellant attempted to molest her. On the basis of the said information, offence under Section 354 IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act was registered against the appellant. After filing of the charge sheet, trial Judge has framed charge against the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Hence this appeal. 5. Contention of the counsel for the appellant is that : i) the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated and the judgment of the trial court his based on surmises and conjectures. ii) the trial court has utterly failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. 3 iii) the evidence of the prosecutrix as well as her father and other witnesses are not corroborative. Thus, there is no absolute evidence the the appellant had committed the offence. iv) the trial court did not appreciate the fact that there was some dispute between the appellant and the father of the prosecutrix regarding fees of yoga class and he has been implicated in a false case. v) the trial court has committed gross error in convicting the appellant under Section 8 of the PoCSO Act, 2012 without aprpeciting the evidence in proper manner. vi) in the present case, none of the prosecution witness has stated that the appellant had made an attempt to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix and therefore the offence is not made out against the appellant. vi) it is submitted that the prosecution witnesses as well as the prosecutrix and her family members have not stated anything with regard to outraging the modesty and therefore the learned trial has committed gross error in convicting the appellant. Vii) it is stated that the prosecutrix had admitted in her deposition before the Court that no incident has ever taken place and that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyonf reasonable doubt. 6. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that the conviction of the appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 4 8. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that her date of birtgh is 3.11.1997 and the date of incident is 28.09.2015. She has stated that on the date of incident, their uncle and aunt had gone to another village and she and her sister were at home. Her sister had gone to dry the clothes in the baadi at that point of time, appellant came and there was conversation between them for sometime and he asked that whether she is suffering from headache and then he gave massage on her head and touched her breast and thereafter made an attempt to outrage her modesty, she resisted and her sister came there and the appellant went away. 9. Father of the prosecutrix (PW-2) has stated that his daughter was residing with his brother and was studying in Class 12 at Joratarai Government School. He has stated that he was informed by his uncle that the appellant had tried to molest her daughter/prosecutrix and ;he lodged the report where the police had recorded the statement of his daughter at Child Development Committee and thereafter their statement was also recorded. Narendra Kumar Nagarchi (PW-5) village Kotwar has stated that the police had seized the Kotwari register vide Ex.P-4 in which the date of birth of the prosecutrix was mentioned as 3.11.97. 10. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on the dte of incident ie. 28.09.2015 accused/appellant came to the house of the prosecutrix and made an attempt to commit sexual assault on the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix has duly supported the prosecution case. The defence has utterly failed to elicit anything from the prosecutrix in her lengthy cross-examination which could suggest that she was a consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant. Thus considering 5 the overall and circumstances of the case, in particular the statement of the prosecutrix, we are of the view that the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 8of the POCSO Act,2012 and therefore it is maintained. 11. Next question that arises for consideration before this Court is as to what would be the appropriate sentence to be awarded to the appellant. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct and the statement of the prosecutrix, her age and that the age of the appellant and I am of the view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence of 3 years imposed on him is reduced to that of 1 year. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, his sentence of life imprisonment is hereby reduced to the period of one year. As the appellant is reported to be on bail, he be sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of the sentence imposed on him. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge suguna SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.05.23 17:12:36 +0530