Partly allowed

Santuram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2023CRA/464/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for rape and penetrative sexual assault under Sections 376 IPC and 6 POCSO. While upholding the conviction based on the unchallenged victim statement, the Court reduced the POCSO sentence from 10 to 7 years, considering the 2016 offense date and the appellant's age and background.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; sentence for POCSO offence reduced to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years; fine affirmed; sentences to run concurrently.

Santuram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No.464 of 2017

¶5

Santuram, aged about 41 years, S/o Shri Rajnu Das Khunte, resident of Hanchalpur, Tiranga Chowk, P.S. Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari, (C.G.),

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant :Shri Amit Kumar Sharma and Shri Pawan Kashyap, Advocate For State/Respondent : Shri Shivnath Shriwas, P.L.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

08/08/2023

¶14

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.02.2017 passed in Special Criminal Case No.31/2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'the POCSO Act') pursuant to the provision of Section 42 of the POCSO Act and Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, and

¶15

¶16

R.I. for 3 three years and fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶17

In the present case, age of the prosecutrix/victim girl (PW-3), at the relevant point of time was about 3 years and 6 months. According to the case of prosecution, on 26.10.2016 at about 9:15 PM, allegedly, appellant abducted the victim girl from her lawful guardianship and took her towards Anganbadi Kendra and there, he removed her underwear and other clothes and committed penetrative sexual assault with her. The matter reported by father (PW-2) of the victim girl on 26.10.2016 itself vide Ex.P-2. Victim girl was medically examined by Dr. Smt. A.J. Khan (PW-11) and her examination report is Ex.P-3. Statement of victim girl and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and Trial Court framed the charges under Section 363, 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. To prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, whereas no defence witness has been examined by the appellant. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶18

After completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court without there being

¶20

¶21

any sufÏcient and clinching evidence available on record. He further submits that statement of the victim girl/prosecutrix is not reliable. Medical report of the victim girl does not corroborate the case of prosecution, therefore, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.

¶22

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

¶23

I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

¶24

The first question for consideration would be what was the age of the victim girl/prosecutrix at the time of alleged incident?

¶25

8 According to the case of prosecution, age of the prosecutrix at the time of alleged incident was about 3 years and 6 months and the said finding was recorded by the Trial Court also which is based upon the evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Further, the above finding is also not disputed by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. Hence, I afÏrm the finding recorded by the Trial Court regarding the age of the victim girl/prosecutrix.

¶26

9 With regard to the alleged incident committed with the victim girl/prosecutrix, it has been stated by the victim girl (PW-3) in her Court statement that on the date of incident, when she was watching circus, the appellant came there and took her away with him towards Anganbadi Kendra and there he tried to enter his private part into her private part. She further deposed that at the time of incident,

¶27

¶28

appellant was sleeping over her and had pressed her left hand. The above statement of the victim girl is not duly rebutted during her cross-examination. The statement of the victim girl is corroborated by her father (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2) to whom she has immediatedly informed about the incident committed with her. Thus, it is established from the unrebbuted statement of the victim girl that the appellant on the date of incident, took her with him and tried to enter his private part into the private part of the victim girl and after removing her clothers, he had slept over her. Therefore, it is well established that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault which is defined under Section 3 of sub-section (c) of POCSO Act. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, in my considered view, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court. Thus, conviction of the appellant is afÏrmed.

¶29

With regard to the sentence, the appellant has been sentenced by the Trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and 3 years and fine of Rs.500 of offence under Section 363 of the IPC. Considering the fact that the alleged incident occured on 26.10.2016 i.e. prior to the amendment in POCSO Act dated 16.08.2019 and before the amendment, the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act was 7 years and after the amendment the maximum sentence was increased to 10 years. Thus,

¶30

¶31

considering the facts that the appellant has already undergone about six years in this case, he has no criminal antecedent, now he is aged about 50 years and he is a person having family to look after, and considering the above facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant i.e. 10 years for offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act appears to be on higher side, thus, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced with R.I. for 7 years. Accordingly, his jail sentence is reduced to 7 years from 10 years. The fine sentence imposed upon by the Trial Court for offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act is hereby afÏrmed. Further, conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC is afÏrmed. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶32

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent shown above.

¶33

Record of the Court below be sent back along with copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action.

¶34

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶35

Prakash

Santuram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santuram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apurwa Haldhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maheep Upadhyay Vs Avanish Sharan

Junas Lakda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Ramteke @ Dekeshwar Ramteke Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pravin Mishra Vs Topeshwar Verma

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh