1 2025:CGHC:6154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1150 of 2021 Jitendra Kumar @ Konda S/o Munna Lal Kenwat Aged About 19 Years R/o Lohar Mohalla, Village Kharmora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh). --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balco Nagar, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Mr. Syed A. H. Rizvi, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Ms. Pushpalata Khalkho, PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on board 03.02.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2017, passed in Session Trial No.10/2016 by which the learned Session Judge, 2 FTC, (POCSO Act), Korba, Chhattisgarh, convicted the accused/appellant under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default clause. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 24.02.2016, present appellant has committed forceful sexual intercourse with minor victim/prosecutrix, who is mentally retarted. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested. 3. On completion of investigation, 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 14 witnesses. Statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence available against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After completion of trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced appellant herein in the manner as described above. 6. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the 3 quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident occurred on 24.02.2016, at that time appellant was only 19 years of age, he is in jail since 24.02.2016 and thereby he has already served about 09 years of jail sentence out of 10 years, he is not having any previous criminal antecedent, hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 9. Elder sister of the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC has stated that victim cannot talk properly as she is mentally retarded. On the date of alleged incident, she saw that the appellant/accused has doing wrong thing with the victim under the shade of Sarju Devangan’s house. When she reached close, she saw that victim and appellant/accused were not wearing any undergarment and blood was oozing near the victim’s thigh. On seeing her, appellant fled away from the spot towards the forest. Thereafter she reported to the incident to her parents. 10. PW-3/elder sister of the victim in her Court statement has stated she knows the appellant as he lives in Chowkpara in our village. 4 On the alleged date of incident, she was studying in verandah of her house at that time, she heard the screaming of the victim and when she went to place of incident, she saw that present appellant has committing rape with the victim and on seeing her appellant fled away from the spot. Blood was oozing from private part of victim. 11. The version of the elder sister of the victim gets corroborated from the evidence of her mother and father (PW-2 & PW-5) as well as medical evidence including the evidence of Dr. Smt. S. Shrivastava, who examined the victim and opined that effort has been made for committing forceful sexual intercourse with the victim. 12. Prosecution in order to prove the date of birth of victim has placed on record Dakhil-Kharij register of Bharat Vidya Mandir, Dadar Khurd, Korba in which date of birth of victim is recorded as 06.07.2007, which is also supported by PW-10/Leelaram Patel (Headmaster), who stated in his evidence that victim was admitted in the School at KG class on 04.07.2013. More-so, mother and father of the victim (PW-2 & PW-5) in their Court evidence stated that on the date of incident, victim was aged about 09 years. 13. Considering facts of the case, nature of offence, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the evidence of PW-3/elder sister of the victim and her mother and father (PW-2 & PW-5) 5 and other material/evidence available on record, this Court is the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, therefore, there is no need to interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the appellant/accused. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-