1 CGHC010360332025 2026:CGHC:29925-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1753 of 2025 Rishabh Berisal S/o Vishal Berisal Aged About 20 Years R/o Sankar Nagar, Behind Vaishali Tower, Torwa, Polic Station- Torwa, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station- Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. CRA No. 380 of 2026 Vinay Malik S/o Late Rajendra Malik Aged About 24 Years R/o Baapu Nagar, Torwa Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur , District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Shriya Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.22 13:14:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avi ndra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the notice issued to PW-11, the father of the victim, has been served upon him, however no one appears on his behalf to make his submission. 2. Although the matter has been listed for consideration on I.A. No. 1 of 2025 (in CRA No. 1753 of 2025) and I.A. No. 1 of 2026 (in CRA No. 380 of 2026), applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail), however considering the fact that of the total period of their sentence awarded by the learned trial Court and their undergone period, with the consent of the parties, both the appeals have been heard finally and I.A. No. 1 of 2025 and I.A. No. 1 of 2026 are disposed of. 3. Both the criminal appeals under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 have been filed by the respective appellants against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Sessions (NIA), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, in Special Case (NIA) No. 40 of 2024 arising out of Crime No. 316 of 2024, registered at police station Sarkanda, Bilaspur for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 370, 342, 354 and 34 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’), whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentence in the following manner:- 3 For appellant- Rishabh Berisal in CRA No. 1753 of 2025 CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 363 IPC R.I. for four years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days. Under Section 342/34 of IPC R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 7 days. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. For appellant- Vinay Malik in CRA No. 380 of 2026 CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 363 of Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, additional 15 days rigorous imprisonment. U/s 354 of Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, additional 7 days rigorous imprisonment. U/s 342 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, additional 7 days rigorous imprisonment. U/s 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, additional 15 days rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 4. The case of the prosecution is that, on 11.03.2024, PW-11/father of the victim-B (PW-9) logged a missing report to the police station Sarkanda that his minor daughter aged about 13 years and 9 months is missing from the night of 10.03.2024 and her whereabouts could 4 not be traced out. The missing report (exhibit P-19) was registered by the police for the offence under Section 363 of IPC against unknown persons. During the investigation, the mobile location of the victim-B and suspected accused Vinay Malik was obtained from Cyber cell and the victim-B was recovered on 12.03.2024 from Hemu Nagar, Bilaspur and recovery panchnama (exhibit P-18) was prepared. Along with the victim-B, her two friends PW-7 and PW-8 have also found with her. With respect to age and date of birth of the victim-B, the school register has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-5) and according to the school register, the date of birth of the victim-B is 30.05.2010 and after retaining its attested true copy (exhibit P-7C), the original register was returned to the school. From the Cyber Crime Cell, Bilaspur the CDR and SDR-CAF and location was obtained by the police, which are exhibit P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-13, P-29 and the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is exhibit P-14. Spot map (exhibit P-2) was prepared by the patwari and exhibit P-28 was prepared by the police. Statement of the victim-B under Section 164 of CRPC and the statements of her two friends were also recorded. The appellant Vinay Malik has been arrested on 14.03.2024 and the accused Ritik Kumar (acquitted accused) was arrested on 08.04.2024. Memorandum statement (exhibit P-4) of the accused Vinay Malik was recorded and his criminal antecedents (exhibit P-30) have also been obtained by the police. Since the another accused Rishabh Berisal was absconding, charge sheet was filed against two accused persons Vinay Malik and Ritik Kumar showing the Rishabh Berisal absconding, before the learned trial Court on 30.05.2024 for the offence under Sections 342, 5 354, 363, 366, 370, 34 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. Rishabh Berisal has been arrested on 02.08.2024 and a supplementary charge sheet has been filed against him on 29.08.2024. 5. The learned trial Court framed charge against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 354, 342/34 and 370/34 of IPC, Section 8 of POCSO Act. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CRPC have been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, pleaded innocence and the accused Vinay Malik submitted that the police have already arrested him due to hot talk with them and falsely implicated in the present case, whereas the accused Rishabh Berisal pleaded false implication. 7. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused Ritik Kumar from all the offences and has convicted the appellants and sentenced them, as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Rishabh Berisal would submit that, the appellant is not challenging his conviction under Section 363, 342/34 of IPC, but he is challenging the sentence awarded to him for the said offences. He would submit that there is no minimum sentence provided for the offences for which he is convicted, the appellant Rishabh Berisal is in 6 jail since 02.08.2024 and thereby already completed more than one year and 10 months, therefore, his sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him. 9. Ms. Shriya Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Vinay Malik would submit that, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The victim-B along with her two friends were found in night walking near Railway station and to keep them safe, the appellant provided shelter in the night, so that their parents may be informed in the morning. The act of the appellant is quite bona fide, but under the pressure of her parents, the victim-B made statement against him. She would further submit that had the victim being kidnapped or abducted, she could have raised alarm or protested as her two friends were also with her. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and their inconsistent evidence is not reliable to hold the appellant guilty in the offence. There is no allegation of any sexual molestation. Even the age of the victim has not been proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence that he was less than 18 years of age. In view of the evidence available on record, the conviction of the appellant suffers from perversity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. In alternative, she further submits that if the appellant is found guilty for the alleged offence, then his sentence may also be reduced for the period already undergone by him considering that the appellant is in jail since 14.03.2024, looking to the total period of sentence awarded to him and the sentence prescribed for the alleged offences. 7 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective appellants and would submit that, the prosecution has duly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. But for minor omission or contradiction, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable and sufficient to hold the appellants guilty for the alleged offences. The evidence of the victim-B is sufficient and not required for any corroboration, as she duly supported the prosecution’s case. From the evidence of victim-B, the manner in which she was kidnapped and outraging her modesty by the appellant Vinay Malik and wrongfully confined by the accused persons, have duly established by the prosecution. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly convicted an sentenced the appellants. The sentence awarded to the appellants are proportionate to the gravity of the offence, which needs no interference and the appeals filed by the respective appellants are liable to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with utmost circumspection. 12. The first question which arises for consideration is, whether the victim-B is minor and less than 18 years of age. To prove the age of the victim-B, the prosecution relied the school register (exhibit P-7C), which is sought to be proved by the Headmistress of the school (PW- 5). She stated in her evidence that the police has seized the school register (exhibit P-7) vide seizure memo (exhibit P-5) and the attested true copy of school register is exhibit P-7C. As per the 8 school register the date of birth of the victim is 30.05.2010. Though, in cross-examination she admitted that, she is not the author of the school register, but she denied that she on her own made entries in the school register. She also denied that the age of the victim was recorded in the school register after reducing it. 13. PW-9 has been examined on 13.06.2025 and she disclosed her age as 15 years. Her age has not been disputed by the defence in her cross-examination. Considering the evidence of the victim about her age and school register (exhibit P-7C), the learned trial Court has found that the prosecution has proved the age of the victim-B, is less than 18 years and she was minor, in which we do not find any illegality or perversity. 14. So far as the involvement of the appellants in the alleged offence are concerned, we again examined the evidence of PW-9/victim-B. She stated in her evidence that PW-7 and PW-8 are her friends. On 11.03.2024, at about 3:30-4:00 a.m. they were going towards Railway station and when they returning back, two persons came near Chhat Ghat by their scooty. They asked them to left their house, but instead of dropping them to their house, they took them towards Railway station. After a distance, they stopped their vehicle and stated that they are police persons and thereafter they took them towards Jairamnagar. They called the appellant Ritik to took them in a house near Railway gate, thereafter the appellants Vinay and Rishabh took them to railway quarter at about 2:00-3:00 a.m. The appellant Vinay Malik shown his intimacy with her and asked her to marry him and outraged her modesty by touching her legs. With the 9 intervention of her friends scuffled took place between them and then Vinay left her there. The appellant Vinay described the SIM card of her and her friends’ mobile phone. At that time, the police persons came there. In cross-examination, she stated that they came out from their houses at about 3:00-3:30 a.m. and gathered together at about 4:00 a.m. It was the early morning time, the peoples are not visiting. When they were returning from Chhat Ghat, light darkness were there. She duly identified the accused persons during the incident and remained firm in her cross-examination. He further stated that she disclosed to the police that the family members of her friends PW-8 intended for her marriage without her consent and therefore, they planned to went away from their house. Though she could not state as to on which place or date, the appellant Vinay destroyed their SIM cards, but she firmly denied that the appellant Vinay has not committed any offence with her. She also denied the suggestion that the appellant Vinay has not outraged her modesty. From the evidence of this witness, the defence could not be able to extract any material from her cross-examination, which makes her evidence doubtful. She remained firm in material part of her allegation and there is no reason for the false implication of the appellants in the defence. 15. The evidence of PW-9/victim-B is supported by the evidence of PW-7 and PW-8, who are her friends and were with the victim-B (PW-9). 16. PW-7 has stated that on the date of incident, she along with her two friends had gone for morning walk. The appellant Vinay Malik came there in his scooty, introduced himself to be a policeman and 10 threatened them that they are roaming alone and should have go to police station. He took them in his scooty towards jungle side and kept them in a house. During that the police came there and took them back. She also stated that the appellant Vinay Malik threatened the victim-B and pressurized her for marriage. In cross-examination she too remained firm in allegation that the appellant Vinay took them and confined in the house. From the cross-examination of this witness, the defence could not rebut the allegation leveled against them. 17. PW-8, who is another friend of the victim-B, has also stated that on the date of incident, when they were in morning walk, the appellant Vinay met them on the way, introduced himself to be a policeman and took them for police station, but instead thereof, he took them towards Jairamnagar and in the next night at railway quarter, from where the police recovered them. She too remained firm in her cross- examination regarding the allegation made against the present appellant. But for minor omission or contradiction, which are trivial in nature, her evidence is supporting the evidence of the victim-B (PW- 9). 18. PW-11 is the father of victim-B and complainant. He stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, his daughter had gone to morning walk, but the appellant kidnapped her and her friends. He chased them up to 5 KMs, but they had gone towards Hemu Nagar and then he could not chased them. In cross-examination, though he admitted that he chased the appellant, but due to dogs on the road, 11 he could not catch them. His evidence is supporting only to the fact that he lodged a missing report of the victim-B (PW-9). 19. PW-6, Sub-Inspector Prakash Tiwari, posted at the Cyber Cell, Bilaspur, deposed that on receipt of the requisition dated 13.05.2024 from the Station House Officer, Sarkanda, he sent e-mails to the Nodal Officers of Airtel, Reliance Jio, Vodafone Idea and BSNL seeking the Call Detail Records (CDRs), Subscriber Detail Records (SDRs) and Customer Application Forms (CAFs) pertaining to the specified IMEI numbers and mobile numbers for the period from 10.03.2023 to 13.03.2023. He proved the e-mail correspondence with the respective service providers as Exhibits P-9 to P-13 and explained the details received from each operator, including the mobile numbers found active on the relevant IMEI numbers and the subscriber particulars of mobile numbers 7580093613 and 9882627754 as reflected in the CAFs. He further proved the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (Exhibit P- 14), certifying the electronic records furnished by the service providers. In his cross-examination, nothing material was elicited to discredit his testimony except a suggestion, which he denied, that he had prepared the report on the oral instructions of the Investigating Officer. His evidence establishes that the CDRs, SDRs and CAFs were obtained directly from the concerned service providers in the ordinary course and were duly supported by the statutory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. 20. PW-12, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 11.03.2024, on the information furnished by the prosecutrix's father regarding her 12 disappearance, he registered the missing person report (Ex.P-21) and made the corresponding Rojnamcha Sanha entry No. 53/2024. Thereafter, he registered FIR No. 316/2024 (Ex.P-19) against an unknown person under Section 363 of the IPC. During investigation, after tracing the prosecutrix, he prepared the recovery memo (Ex.P- 18) in the presence of witnesses on 12.03.2024 and, after her recovery, handed over her custody to her father under the Supurdnama (Ex.P-20). On the same day, he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. He further stated that accused Vinay Malik was taken into custody and, in the presence of witnesses Manoj Jaiswal and Hemant Srivastava, his memorandum statement (Ex.P-4) was recorded. Upon finding sufficient evidence, accused Vinay Malik and Ritik Kumar were arrested under arrest memos (Ex.P-23 and P-26, respectively). On 14.03.2024, he prepared the spot map (Ex.P-28) and also addressed a requisition (Ex.P-29) to the In-charge, Cyber Cell, Bilaspur, seeking the Call Detail Records and subscriber information relating to IMEI Nos. 862448056424482 and 862448056424490. He further recorded the statements of the prosecutrix and her friends during the course of investigation. Significantly, the testimony of this witness remained unshaken in cross-examination, and no material contradiction or omission could be elicited to discredit the investigation conducted by him. 21. In the case of “Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana” 2013 (14) SCC 434, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and 13 discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. It has been held that:- “24. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Therefore, unless irrelevant, details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored. The court has to examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Thus, the court must read the evidence of a witness as a whole, and consider the case in light of the entirety of the circumstances, ignoring the minor discrepancies with respect to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution. The said discrepancies as mentioned above, should not be taken into consideration, as they cannot form grounds for rejecting the evidence on record as a whole. (See 14 State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, State v. Saravanan and Vijay v. State of M.P.)” 22. After appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or infirmity. The evidence of the victim-B (PW-9) is natural, cogent and trustworthy and stands substantially corroborated by the evidence of PW-7 and PW-8. The prosecution has also proved that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. The evidence establishes that the appellants had taken minor victims away from their lawful guardianship of their parents and wrongfully confined them, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is further established that the appellant Vinay Malik, with sexual intent, touches the legs of the victim-B, thereby committing sexual assault within the meaning of Section 7 of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, besides committing the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The discrepancies highlighted by the defence are minor and trivial and do not create any dent in the otherwise consistent prosecution case. We therefore concur with the findings of the learned trial Court and affirm the conviction of the appellants for the offence for which they have been held guilty. 23. So far as sentence awarded to the appellants are concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh” 1977 (3) SCC 287 has laid down the law with respect to awarding sentence to the accused persons. In paragraph 9 it was held as under :- 15 “9. Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti- social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If 16 you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.' In the same strain a British Buddhist-Christian Judge, speaking to a BBC reporter underscored the role of compassion : "Circuit Judge Christmas Humphreys told the BBC reporter recently that a judge looks 'at the man in the dock in a different way : not just a criminal to be punished, but a fellow human being, another form of life who is also a form of the same one life as oneself.' In the context of karuna and punishment for karma the same Judge said : 'The two things are not incompatible. You do punish him for what he did, but you bring in a quality of what is sometimes called mercy, rather than an emotional hate against the man for doing something harmful. You feel with him; that is what compassion means." 24. Further, in the matter of “Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana & Others” 2016 (1) SCC 463 in paragraph 1 & 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakahand[1], while focusing on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:- "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and 17 punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value- based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner.We may hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal 18 perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court.The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment." [Emphasis supplied] 2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [2], it has been held that:- "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross- cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system 19 to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be-as it should be-a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious 20 threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.[3]" [Emphasis supplied] And again:- "The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal"." 25. The appellant Vinay Malik has also been convicted under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Section 8 of the POCSO Act provided punishment for sexual assault. The appellant Vinay Malik is found guilty of sexual assault as defined in Section 7 of the POCSO Act, as he touched the legs of the victim-B with sexual intent. The sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is as under:- “8. Punishment for sexual assault.—Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which 21 may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 26. Having upheld the conviction of the appellants, the question that remains is with regard to the quantum of sentence. Sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion, which is required to be exercised by balancing the gravity of the offence with the mitigating circumstances of the accused. In the present case, the incident does not disclose the use of any weapon or extreme physical violence, and the act attributed to appellant Vinay Malik, though constituting "sexual assault" within the meaning of Section 7 of the POCSO Act, is confined to the act proved on record. The appellants have faced the ordeal of criminal prosecution for a considerable period. Having regard to the nature and degree of culpability, the age of appellant Vinay Malik at the time of the incident, the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, and the principles governing sentencing enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Giasuddin (supra) and Raj Bala (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellants by enhancing the fine amount. 27. Thus, the sentences of the appellants are reduced as given hereinbelow:- For appellant- Rishabh Berisal in CRA No. 1753 of 2025 CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 363 IPC For the period already undergone by the appellant with fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days. 22 Under Section 342/34 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, additional 7 days rigorous imprisonment. (conviction maintained, however awarded sentence already undergone) Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The fine amount imposed by this Court are in addition to the fine amount, which has been imposed by the learned trial Court. The fine amount, so awarded by this Court, shall be paid within two months from today. After deposition of the enhanced fine amount of total Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to the victim (PW-9) as compensation as provided under Section 395 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. For appellant- Vinay Malik in CRA No. 380 of 2026 CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 363 of Indian Penal Code For the period already undergone by the appellant with fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, additional 15 days rigorous imprisonment. U/s 354 of Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, additional 7 days rigorous imprisonment. (conviction maintained, however awarded sentence already undergone) U/s 342 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, additional 7 days rigorous imprisonment. (conviction maintained, however awarded sentence already undergone) U/s 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, additional 15 days rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 23 28. The appellant Vinay Malik is reported to be in jail since 14.03.2024. He shall serve the entire sentence as modified/reduced by this Court. The appellant Rishabh Berisal is also reported to be in jail since 02.08.2024. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to payment of fine amount as awarded by this Court. 29. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant Vinay Malik (in CRA No. 380 of 2026) is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 30. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved