1 CGHC010391652025 2026:CGHC:40893 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1856 of 2025 1 - Pradeep @ Monu Raote, S/o Balram Raote Aged About 20 Years, R/o Sildha Thana- Patharia, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. GA and Mr. Khulesh Sahu, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 18.09.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of BNS, 2023 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Upper Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 Session Judge, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara (C.G.) in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No.57/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction u/S Sentence Section 137 (2) of BNS RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 10 days. Section 87 of BNS RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 20 days. Section 351 (3) of BNS RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 10 days. Section 8 of POCSO RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 20 days. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellant abducted the minor victim/prosecutrix, aged about 13 years, took her to Hyderabad where he sexually assaulted her and also raped her, thereafter FIR (Ex-P/15) was lodged by the father of the victim (PW-3) against the unknown person. Subsequently the victim and the appellant were caught by the Police at Hyderabad from where they were brought to Police Station Simga, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara and the victim was recovered from the possession of the appellant vide Ex-P/4. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the 3 concerned Magistrate for the offence under Sections 137 (2), 87, 75 (1), 351 (3) & 64 of BNS and Sections 4, 6 & 8 of POCSO Act. 3. The learned Upper Session framed charges for the offence under Sections 137 (2), 87, 75 (1), 351 (3) & 64 of BNS and Section 4/8 of POCSO Act against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. So as to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents along with the date of birth certificate of the victim (Article-A/1) and Gum Insan Kaymi Nakal Rojnamchasanha (Article-2/C). The statement of appellant under Section 351 of BNSS was also recorded, in which the appellant denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence but he did not examine any witness in his defence, rather he pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Upper Session convicted and sentenced the appellant, as has been mentioned in the opening paragraph. 5. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Trial Court has held the age of the victim to be 12 years, 9 months and 16 days on the date of incident based on the birth certificate of the victim (Article-A/1), but the victim has admitted in 4 her cross-examination that she was studying in Class-9th at the time of incident and she has failed once in Class-6th, which shows that the date of birth of victim mentioned in the birth certificate (Article-A/1) is not correct. He further submits that the victim herself has stated in her cross-examination that she had friendship with the appellant and they both used to share pleasure and grief with each other and they had planned jointly to go to Hyderabad. She has also admitted that when they were going to Hyderabad, she had firstly reached at Bus Stand, Simga where the appellant joined her and thereafter they together went to Raipur and then Hyderabad through train. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that at the time of incident, the age of the victim was more than 16 years and she herself accompanied the appellant, therefore, conviction of the appellant only on the basis of doubtful evidence is against the settled principle of law, hence he prays that the appeal be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of all the charges. Alternatively, he further prays that the appellant is in jail since 13.08.2024 i.e. from the date of his arrest to till date and if the conviction of the appellant is upheld, then the jail sentence imposed upon him may be reduced. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Upper Session and submits that the learned Trial Court has properly adduced the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid 5 offence, hence the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the record of the learned Trial Court. 9. The date of the incident of the instant case is 10.08.2024. The deposition of the victim (PW-2) was recorded on 14.08.2024, in which she stated her date of birth to be 13 years, which has also been supported by her father (PW-3). PW-1 is Badi Maa (elder mother) of the victim. She has specifically stated that at the time of incident, the age of the victim was 12 years and 9 months. 10. Article-A/1 is the original date of birth certificate of the victim issued by the Gram Panchayat, Dharsiva, District Raipur, in which her date of birth has been mentioned as 26.10.2011. 11. Sections 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under:- “Section 94 - Presumption and determination of age- (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age. (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining - 6 (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order. (3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.” Thus, in view of the above, the original date of birth certificate of the victim issued by the Gram Panchayat, Dharsiva is valid and the same can be relied upon to determine the age of the victim. 12. The original date of birth certificate of the victim (Article-A/1) was issued by the Gram Panchayat, Dharsiva on 07.11.2011, that too on the very next month after the birth of the victim and as per the date of birth of the victim mentioned therein as 26.10.2011, the age of the victim has rightly been held by the learned Trial Court to be 12 years, 9 months and 16 days at the time of the incident. Hence this finding of the learned Trial Court is affirmed. 13. So far as the charge of abduction and sexual assault against the appellant is concerned, the victim has stated in her deposition 7 that prior to 1-2 months of the incident, the appellant used to call her and allured her to meet him and when she went to him, the appellant used to kiss her, molest her and press her chest. She has further stated that at Hyderabad also, the appellant had pressed her chest. She has also stated that the appellant had made physical relation with her, but the appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 64 of the BNS. The aforesaid statement of the victim has also not been controverted in the cross-examination rather the victim has admitted various suggestions given by the defence counsel in the cross- examination that the appellant took her to Hyderabad. Though from such statement, it appears that the victim joined company of the appellant by her own, but since victim was minor on the date of incident, therefore, her consent has no legal value. 14. PW-1 Badi Maa (elder mother) of the victim, PW-3 father of victim, PW-4 cousin of the victim and PW-5 Mausi (aunt) of the victim have also stated in their deposition that the victim and the appellant were caught in Hyderabad from where they were brought to Simga by the Police at Police Station Simga. This fact also gets support from the recovery panchnama (Ex-P/4) and nothing has been elucidated in their cross-examination to discard the truthfulness of their statement. 15. Thus from the aforesaid evidence, it is very much established that the appellant had abducted the minor victim and took her to 8 Hyderabad with ill intention. It has also been proved by the victim that the appellant not only at her village rather at Hyderabad also had molested her and pressed her chest. Thus, the offence under Sections 137 (2), 87 & 351 (3) of BNS along with Section 8 of POCSO Act has rightly been held proved by the learned Trial Court against the appellant. Hence, this finding of the learned Trial Court is also affirmed. 16. So far as the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, the appellant is a young boy, aged about 20 years, he is in jail since 13.08.2024 i.e. from the date of his arrest, thus total 2 years and 1 month has already passed, therefore, having considered the young age of the appellant, this Court is inclined to reduce the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Trial Court for the offence under Section 87 of BNS and Section 8 of POCSO Act. 17. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence under Sections 137 (2), 87 & 351 (3) of BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act is affirmed and sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Sections 137 (2) & 351 (3) of BNS is also affirmed, however sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 87 of BNS and Section 8 of POCSO Act is reduced from 5 years to 3 years, which is the minimum jail sentence, whereas the fine amount imposed upon the appellant for all the aforesaid 9 offence shall remain intact and all the sentences shall run concurrently. 18. 18. After setting off the period of detention undergone by the appellant against the sentence of imprisonment, the remaining jail sentence shall be served by the appellant. 19. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Nirala