1 2025:CGHC:59999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 2242 of 2025 Sushnat Rai @ Bhambol S/o Shri Kartik Rai, Aged About 50 Years R/o Dharamjaigarh Colony, P.S. Dharamjaigarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S.- Dharamjaigarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 10/12/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 415 (2) of the BNSS, 2023 questioning the judgment of conviction and order 2 of sentence dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Special Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No.11/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence In Default Under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 R.I. for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 01 month 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that father of the victim, lodged a report at Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, stating that on 18.03.2024 at approximately 03:00 PM, the accused took the victim on his motorcycle (Luna) to a secluded farm area and assaulted the victim by force, causing her to fall to the ground. The accused then pressed the victim's chest and was unlawfully touching the victim's private parts over the victim's pants by caressing the genital area. 4. Based on this complaint, offences were registered in Crime Number 84/2024 at Police Station Dharamjaigarh under Sections 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 5. A spot map of the crime scene, was prepared. In accordance with 3 Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the statement of the victim was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. 6. During investigation, accused/appellant was shown arrested on 19.03.2024, later on completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant U/s 354 of I.P.C & u/s 10 of POCSO. The present appellant had abjured the guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 7. In the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses in support of their case, & the defense had examined none in support of their defense. However, Learned Special Judge, FTSC POCSO, Ghargoda Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) after hearing learned counsel for the parties, convicted & sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellant. He further contended that the learned court below did not consider material available on record and convicted for short sentence as mentioned in the cause title against the appellant which is against the law and hence the impugned conviction is liable to be set-aside. He further contended that there 4 are no eye-witness in this case where the prosecution alleged the time of crime to be of around 03:00 P.M. which raises doubts about the accused's culpability. The entire prosecution case rests upon the evidence of the prosecutrix which is replete with contradictions and discrepancies. The learned trial court failed to properly appreciate the contradictions. No independent eyewitnesses were examined by the prosecution, despite the incident occurring in a public place. The victim and other witnesses have given contradictory statements regarding the incident. Their statements are contradictory and do not support the facts of the prosecution regarding the incident and according to the First Information Report submitted. On the basis of contradictory facts and contradictory analysis in the case, the accused are requested to be acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt. Thus, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the act committed by the appellant is in serious in nature. She further contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and the impugned judgment of the trial Court needs no interference and the appellant is not entitled to get acquittal. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned 5 judgment passed by the trial Court as well as other material available on record, with utmost circumspection. 11. Regarding the age of the prosecutrix/victim, the victim (PW-1) stated that she was born in the year 2011 and she was aged about 11 years at the time of incident and studied in Class 5th. Father of the victim (PW-2) also affirmed the submission of the victim. 12. Assistant Teacher (PW-3) has stated that in the serial number 2163 of the victim's Dakhil Kharij register, the name of the victim and the name of the parents are mentioned and his date of birth is mentioned as 30.10.2013 and the date of admission is 16.07.2019. The register of serial number 2163 of the victim's Vakhil Kharij register is Ex.P. 7 and its photocopy is Ex.P. 7C. 13. The trial Court has convicted the appellant on the ground that at the time of incident, victim was below 12 years of age, therefore, she was not able to give her consent legally. With regard to age of the victim, the trial Court has relying upon statement of the vicitim. This is corroborated by the statements of the victim's father (PW-2), and Kamal Mandal (PW-6). Similarly, the statement of witness Dr. Pragati Rana (PW-8), confirms that the victim suffered injuries due to the accused's slamming. The defense's defense is not supported by the witnesses' statements. The victim's being a minor, under the age of 12 at the time of the incident, has been proven beyond doubt. The above finding recorded by the trial 6 Court is based upon the evidence available on record which is not perverse nor contrary to the records. Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is established that at the time of incident, victim was below 12 years of age. The trial Court has found that at the time of incident, the age of the victim was 10 years and 04 months. However, the author of the admission/discharge register has not been examined by the prosecution, but as per the statement made by the witnesses, the trial Court has rightly held the age of the victim was below 12 years, i.e., 10 years and 04 months at the time of incident. 14. In order to consider the version of the victim, I have to examine the evidence/material placed on record by the prosecution. Victim (PW-01) has stated in her deposition that on the date of the incident, she had gone to deliver bananas. She encountered the accused, who forced her to drink alcohol by holding her nose. She also stated that the accused brandished a knife and demanded that she remove her clothes. She ran crying to a brother and then went to the police station to report the incident. She further stated that the accused had thrown her to the ground, pressed her chest, and fondled her urinating area. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence of the victim (PW-1) who has specifically stated the role of the appellant, evidence of her father (PW-02). Further considering the 7 other material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to the conviction part. Ordered accordingly. 16. In view of above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court to the appellant is hereby affirmed/maintained. 17. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant