1 2026:CGHC:1620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 56 of 2022 Arjun Nayak S/o Manglu Nayak, Aged About 22 Years, R/o. Shankarpara Ward No. 6, Supela, Police Station Supela, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Permanent R/o. Village and Police Station Bodda, District Kalahandi (Odisha) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police of Police Station Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Devendra Kumar Swarnkar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer SB:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 12/01/2026 1. This Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15/12/2021 passed by the Additional SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Durg, District Durg (CG) in Special Sessions Case No.92/2021, whereby the learned Special Court, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 323 of the IPC RI for 1 month with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month Under Section 354 of the IPC RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 2 months Under Section 354- A (1)(i) of the IPC RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months Under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as defined under Section 7 RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months All sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.7.2021, the minor prosecutrix/victim (PW-1) made a written complaint (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Supela, District Durg alleging therein that the appellant had been harassing and stalking her for the past two years. The prosecutrix further stated that the appellant pressured her to talk with him, but out of fear, she did not reveal this fact to anyone earlier. On 21.7.2021, at about 5.30 p.m., while she was sitting near her house, the appellant approached her and touched her chest under the pretext that she was holding a mobile. When she screamed, the appellant assaulted her by slapping her cheek. As several persons were sitting nearby, she felt insulted and thereafter, filed the written complaint. Based on the written complaint (Ex.P/1), the FIR (Ex.P/2) was lodged against the appellant for the offence under Sections 354, 354D and 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short “the POCSO Act”) in Police Station Supela, District Durg. The spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/4. The statement (Ex.P/5) of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.PC was recorded. Further, the victim’s Class X Marksheet (Ex.C/1) and Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/14 ‘C’) were seized. The victim was medically examined by Dr.Ankita Kamde (PW-4). After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet for the offence under Sections 354, 354D, 323 the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act was filed against the appellant before the concerned jurisdictional Court. 3. Learned Special Court framed the charges under Section 354, 354A, 354D, 323 of the IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial. 4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents including Class X 4 marksheet (Ex.C/1) of the victim. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the crime in question. He has not examined any witness in defence. 5. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Special Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 354D of the IPC but convicted and sentenced him for the offence mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Against which, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim was not a minor on the date of the incident, as two different dates of birth appear in her evidence and the school record respectively. It is further contended that despite this discrepancy, the Special Court erroneously treated the victim as a minor, although the prosecution failed to prove the minority status of the victim beyond reasonable doubt. He would also submit that the victim and the appellant are residents of the same vicinity and they used to talk to each other prior to the date of the incident. In her cross-examination, the victim herself admitted that at the time of the incident, a scuffle ensued between them over the possession of her mobile. Consequently, the appellant’s hand made contact with her chest during the course of that struggle. He would further submit that the appellant had no sexual intent nor did he deliberately intend to touch her chest; rather the contact was purely accidental. Hence, the conviction of the appellant is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly prays that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges. 5 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record along with record of the Special Court with utmost circumspection. 9. As per the case of the prosecution, the victim (PW-1) was minor on the date of the incident. While the victim stated her date of birth to be ‘8.12.2004’, her Class X Mark-sheet (Ex.C/1) mentions her date of birth as ‘8.4.2004’ Furthermore, the Dhakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/14 ‘C’) also records her date of birth as 8.4.2004. Thus, contradictory facts emerge from the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence regarding the exact date of birth of the victim. 10. Having considered such contradictory evidence and further considering the fact that the victim was on the verge of majority on the date of the incident, it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that the date of birth (8.4.2004) mentioned in the Dakhil Kharij Register and the Class X Mark sheet is her exact date of birth. Consequently, the finding recorded by the Special Court that the victim was minor on the date of the incident deserves to be and accordingly set-aside. 11. So far as the conviction for the offence of molestation and sexual harassment is concerned, it is apparent from the evidence of the victim (PW-1) that while she was sitting in front of a neighbour’s house, the appellant allegedly approached her and touched her chest under the pretext that she was holding a mobile. The victim subsequently disclosed the incident to her mother (PW-2). Moreover, the victim admitted in her cross-examination that the appellant had never molested her prior to the date of the incident. In para 6 of her cross- examination, the victim has also admitted that the appellant’s hand 6 came in contact with her chest while attempting to snatch the mobile from her. Although the written complaint (Ex.P/1) states that several other persons were sitting near the place of the incident, the prosecution has failed to examine any witness other than the victim’s mother (PW-2). Ku. Yashoda Nishad was cited as an independent witness whose statement was recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Cr.PC, however, she was also not examined by the prosecution. Furthermore, the evidence of the victim’s mother (PW-2) is hearsay, as it is based solely on the information provided by the victim after the incident. 12. Having considered the admission made by the victim that the appellant had never molested her prior to the incident and that a scuffle occurred on account of snatching of a mobile, this Court is of the view that any contact between the appellant’s hands and the victim’s chest during that struggle appears to be incidental. Consequently, even if such contact occurred, it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant touched her chest with a specific intent to outrage her modesty or with any sexual intent. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 323, 354, 354-A(1)(i) of the IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act is not found to be sustainable. The prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 15.The appellant is said to be on bail. He need not surrender. The bail 7 bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 16.Record of the concerned Court below along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and doing needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Shyna