1 2026:CGHC:6827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1036 of 2016 Ajit Rao S/o Vijay Rao Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sandi, Police Station And Post Office Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Pooja Yadav on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 06/02/2026 1. The present criminal appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2016 passed by Seventh Additional 2 Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 25/16 whereby the appellant stands convicted as under: CONVICTION SENTENCE u/s 354(D) of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 6 months. u/s 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim lodged an oral report at Police Station Arang, District Raipur, stating that she is 16 years old and studies in Class 10 at Village Bhansoj. She goes daily on foot from Samoda to Bhansoj School. Her neighbour, Ajit Rao (the accused), for about the last four months, has been forcibly saying “I love you” to her on the way and writing similar words on the bridge of the road, thereby insulting and harassing her. He constantly follows her and keeps saying “I love you””, due to which she feels distressed. On the basis of the said written report, the police of Police Station Arang registered Crime No. 13/16 against the accused under Section 354 (D) of the IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and commenced investigation. Thereafter, the statements of the victim, her mother, and other witnesses were recorded. The school progress report was seized in relation to proof of the victim’s age. A spot map was prepared at the place of occurrence. The accused was arrested, and after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for the 3 offences under Section 354(D) of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is bad, illegal, perverse and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record. That, the learned trial court erred in holding that the appellant has committed offence punishable under Section 354(D) of IPC and Section 12 of PCOSO Act, 2012. The judgment of the learned trial court is based on surmises and conjectures. The learned trial court has utterly failed to appreciate the evidence in proper and right perspective. The evidence of prosecutrix, i.e. Ku. Prabha Sahu (PW-1) and her parents as well as her friends are not corroborated by other prosecution witness. The learned trial court erred in appreciating the legal position prevailing in the case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he does not want to press this criminal appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant at present is aged about 42 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2016. The appellant has remained in jail from 10.01.2016 to 14.01.2016. After passing of the judgment dated 01.08.2016, the learned trial court suspended the sentence of the appellant till 30.08.2016 and on 22.08.2016, the appellant was enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, 4 the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The first question of determination before this Court is whether on the date of incident, the victim was minor? 8. In this regard, the victim (PW-1) stated that she was a 10th grade student at Bhansoj High School in 2015. Her date of birth is 10th June 10, 1999. She lives under the care of her parents. The inci- dent occurred in January, 2016. The police seized her Class VIII progress report as per Ex. P/4 and the original progress report is Ex. P/5. During the cross-examination of this witness, her state- ments regarding her age and date of birth remained uncontrover- sial. 9. PW-2/mother of victim stated that her daughter (victim) is approxi- mately 16 years old. Last year the victim was studying in Class 10th at Bhansoj School. The incident occurred approximately four months ago. In cross-examination, this witness stated that she is il- literate and therefore cannot provide the victim’s date of birth. No such statement was made in her cross-examination that could raise any doubt about the victim’s stated age. 5 10. PW-3/ father of victim stated that the victim is 16 years old. Last Last year the victim was studying in Class 10th at Bhansoj School. The incident occurred approximately four months ago. The victim also stated in cross-examination that he was unable to provide the victim’s date of birth, attributing this to his own lack of education. 11. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and docu- mentary evidence, held that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. The age of the victim stands duly proved from the school progress report and related documents, which establish that she was about 16 years old at the relevant time. The defence has failed to challenge the authenticity of these documents. 12. Now, the next question for consideration before this Court is did the accused commit sexual harassment on the minor victim by writing “I love you” on the canal, bridge, tree and school wall with the intention of luring her on the date, time and place of the inci- dent? 13. PW-3, the father of the victim, has deposed that the victim in- formed him about the acts of the appellant. Upon verification, he found that the appellant had written the victim’s name along with his own name at public places. He further stated that even the ap- pellant’s wife had seen the writings and informed villagers. Nothing material has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. 14. PW-4 and PW-5, who were acquainted with both the victim and the appellant, have stated that the victim used to go to school with 6 them and that writings containing the victim’s name along with the appellant’s name were seen on the school wall, bridge, and trees. Their evidence establishes that the victim had disclosed the inci- dent to them. Though they are hearsay witnesses to some extent, their statements corroborate the version of the victim. 15. PW-6, the Investigating Officer, has proved the registration of the FIR, preparation of the spot map, seizure of school records to es- tablish the age of the victim, recording of statements, and arrest of the accused. He has also confirmed that during investigation, the writings were found at the indicated places. His cross-examination does not reveal any material contradiction affecting the prosecution case. 16. The testimony of the victim is clear, consistent, and inspires confi- dence. She has categorically stated that the accused used to fol- low her daily and repeatedly utter “I love you”, thereby harassing her. Her testimony is corroborated by the statements of her mother and other prosecution witnesses. 17. It is well settled that the testimony of a victim of sexual harass- ment, if found reliable and trustworthy, does not require indepen- dent corroboration. In the present case, the evidence on record is cogent and free from material contradictions. 18. The essential ingredients of Section 354(d) of IPC (stalking) are clearly made out, as the accused repeatedly followed the victim and contacted or attempted to contact her despite her disinterest. Further, the acts of making unwelcome sexual remarks towards a 7 minor fall squarely within the ambit of Section 12 of the POCSO Act. 19. The defence has not been able to establish any motive for false implication. No material contradiction or legal infirmity has been pointed out which would justify interference with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. 20. Thus, the prosecution has been fully successful in proving the of- fence under Section 354 (D) of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court does not find that there is any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 21. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2016, consid- ering the age of the appellant at present, the short sentence awarded by the Sessions Court, and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and he remained in jail from 10.01.2016 to 14.01.2016, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the in- terest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is re- duced to the period already undergone by him under Section 354 (D) of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. 22. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is allowed in part. 23. Conviction of the appellant under Section 354 (D) of IPC and Sec- tion 12 of POCSO Act is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforementioned section is hereby modified 8 and reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain intact. 24. The appellant is reported to be on bail, hence, his bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima