Partly allowed

Dinesh Ramteke @ Dekeshwar Ramteke v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2023CRA/72/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the conviction of an appellant under the POCSO Act for sexual offences. While affirming the conviction and fine, the court reduced the sentence from five years to three years, considering the appellant's lack of criminal antecedents and long duration of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; conviction and fine affirmed; sentence reduced from 5 years to 3 years; bail bonds remain operative for 6 months.

Dinesh Ramteke @ Dekeshwar Ramteke Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2021

¶3

Dinesh Ramteke @ Dekeshwar Ramteke, S/o Pyarelal, aged about 48 years, Occupation- Government Servant, R/o Village Haldi, P.S. Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶4

---- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Daundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Respondent

¶8

For Appellant	: Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate
For State/Respondent	: Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, Panel
	Lawyer

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶10

Judgment on Board

¶11

08.08.2023

¶12

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.12.2020 passed in Special Criminal Case POCSO No.90/2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, In-charge F.T.C., Balod (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 354 & 354 of the IPC and Sections 7/8 & 7/8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000 & RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000 respectively, with default stipulations. All the sentences to run concurrently.

¶13

¶14

2. There are two victim girls In this case. At the time of incident victim No.1(PW1) & victim No.2 (PW2) were aged about 8 years and they were studied in Class 4^th & 5^th respectively. On 17.08.2017, mother of victim No.1 (PW3) lodged a report in concerned police station alleging therein that on the date of occurrence, at about 2.30 p.m., both the victims came crying and on being asked, they stated that their breasts were pressed by the Appellant herein. Thereafter, the incident was also narrated to family members of victim no.2. On the basis of report made by mother of victim No.1 (PW3), FIR has been lodged against the Appellant. Thereafter, statement of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Trial Court framed the charges against the Appellant. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. In statement of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he pleaded innocence and false implication, however, no defence witness was examined by the Appellant.

¶15

3. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶16

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his

¶17

3 argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the Appellant is aged about 48 years. He is already undergone about 2 years 9 months in jail. He has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2017, i.e. for about 6 years, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced from 5 years to 3 years which is the minimum sentence prescribed in Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act.

¶18

5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the appeal and supported the impugned judgment.

¶19

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

¶20

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the Appellant is facing the lis since 2017 and there is no criminal antecedents against him. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced from 5 years to 3 years. Ordered accordingly.

¶21

8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and fine amount of the Appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment is affirmed and against the conviction he is sentenced to the period from 5 years to 3 years. In default of payment of the fine amount, the Appellant shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶22

¶23

9. It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶24

10. Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶25

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶26

S hubham

Dinesh Ramteke @ Dekeshwar Ramteke v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Ramteke @ Dekeshwar Ramteke 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

Santuram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pravin Mishra Vs Topeshwar Verma

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh