Shatrughan Jangde @ Paku Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Page No.1 of 10 IN CRA-156-2023

¶2

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶3

2025:CGHC:24969

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2023

¶7

[Arising out of judgment dated 21.11.2022, passed in Sessions Trial No.34 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Shatrughan Jangde @ Paku) by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Bemetara (CG)]

¶8

Shatrughan Jangde @ Paku S/o Hiralal Jangde Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Khapari (A), Police Station- Nandghat, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellant (In Jail)

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Police Station- Nandghaat, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

[Cause-title taken from case information system (CIS)]

¶14

For Appellant : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶16

(Judgment on Board)

¶17

17.06.2025

¶18

(1) This criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant under Section 374(2) of CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2022, passed in Sessions Trial No.34 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Shatrughan Jangde @ Paku) by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Bemetara (CG), whereby he

¶19

Page No.2 of 10 IN CRA-156-2023

¶20

has been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶21

Conviction	Sentence
U/s. 354 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 04 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 02 months.
U/s. 354(b) of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 04 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 02 months.
U/s. 10 of POCSO Act	Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 02 months.

¶22

[All the sentences are directed to run concurrently]

¶23

(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 28.04.2022, at about 05:30 PM, at Village Khapari, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Nandgath, District Bemetara, the accusedappellant herein, with the intent to outrage the modesty of the minor victim (PW-02), aged about 07 years 05 months (i.e. below 12 years), committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offences.

¶24

(3) The further case of the prosecution is that when mother of the victim (PW-01) reported the matter to the police by submitted written complaint (Ex.P/01), FIR (Ex.P/02) was registered against the appellant and wheels of investigation started running, in which, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/03 & Ex.P/04. Victim’s statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded vide Ex.P/06. The medical examination regarding fitness of the victim (PW-02)

¶25

Page No.3 of 10 IN CRA-156-2023

¶26

was also conducted by Dr. Roshan Sahu (PW-08) and, as per her report (Ex.P/19) it has been opined that the victim (PW-02) was found fit at the time of examination. Further, in order to ascertain the correct age of the victim (PW-02), copy of dakhila kharij register (Ex.P/11C) was obtained/seized vide Ex.P/09 and, according to which, her date of birth has been mentioned as 23.11.2014, meaning thereby the victim was minor aged about 08-09 years on the date of offence (i.e. less than 12 years). Thereafter, the appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/23. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

¶27

(4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents, whereas the appellant in support of his defence, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶28

(5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offences punishable under Section 354, 354(b) of IPC as also under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and

¶29

Page No.4 of 10 IN CRA-156-2023

¶30

sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶31

(6) Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences, as the prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. Neither medical evidence nor forensic evidence in available to support the case of the prosecution, in absence of which, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. Even otherwise, in light of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the appellant cannot be awarded sentence for both the offences under Section 354(b) of IPC and under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. In alternative, learned counsel vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the age of the victim to be below 12 years on the date of offence for the reasons that: (i) Baliram Sahu (PW-03), who is Head Master of the victim’s school, has clearly stated that at the time when the victim’s was admitted in the school, he was not the Head Master of the school and he is also not aware as to who has made the entry regarding date of birth of the victim the in dakhila kharij register (Ex.P/11C). Even the document on which basis the said date of birth of the victim has been mentioned is not known to him and the parents of the

¶32

Page No.5 of 10 IN CRA-156-2023

¶33

victim have also not put their signatures in the relevant Colum No.9 of the said dakhila kharij register (Ex.P/11C) and (ii) the mother of the victim (PW-01) has also not specifically stated the date of birth of the victim (PW-02) in her statement before the Court. As such, Section 9(m), punishment for which prescribed under Section 10 of POCSO Act, will not been applicable in the present case. Learned counsel submits that at the best the appellant can be convicted for offence under Section 07 of the POCSO Act, punishment of which has bee prescribed under Section 08 of the POCSO and, for which, the minimum sentence has been prescribed to be 03 years, which the appellant had already undergone. Similarly, for offence under Section 354 of IPC, the minimum sentence has been prescribed to be 01 year. Therefore, the appellant be sentenced to the period already undergone by him and present appeal deserves to be party allowed.

¶34

(7) Per-contra , learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has been able to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that in view of statement of the victim (PW-02), wherein she has clearly narrated the incident and implicated appellant herein to be the author of the crime in question coupled with other evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted the

¶35

Page No.6 of 10 IN CRA-156-2023

¶36

appellant for the offences mentioned herein-above. He also contends that it is not a case where the conviction and sentence of the appellant can be altered to a lesser offence. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

(8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶38

(9) In the present case, the case of the prosecution it totally based on the statements of victim (PW-02) and that of her mother (PW-01. A careful perusal of the statements of both the witnesses would that on the date and time of the offence while the victim had gone to the pond for taking bath, at that juncture, the appellant came there and with the intent to outrage her modesty, sexually assaulted her, upon which, the victim (PW-02) somehow manged to escape and return to her home and informed the matter to her mother (PW-01), who ultimately, reported the matter to the police. Both, victim (PW-02) and her mother (PW-01) were subjected to some length of cross-examination, but they remained consistent in their version. As such, their testimonies inspire confidence and can safely be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the offences in question.

¶39

(10) So far as age of the victim (PW-02) to be less than 12 years is concerned, the learned trial Court has relied upon the dakhila kharij register (Ex.P/11C), according to which, her date of birth

¶40

Page No.7 of 10 IN CRA-156-2023

¶41

has been mentioned as 23.11.2014, meaning thereby the victim was minor aged about 08-09 years on the date of offence (i.e. less than 12 years). However, Baliram Sahu (PW-03), who is Head Master of the victim’s school, has clearly stated in Para-06 of his cross-examination that at the time when the victim was admitted in the school, he was not the Head Master of the school and he is also not aware as to who has made the entry regarding date of birth of the victim the in dakhila kharij register (Ex.P/11C). He has also stated that the document on which basis which the said date of birth of the victim has been mentioned is not known to him and the parents of the victim have also not put their signatures in the relevant Colum No.9 of the said dakhila kharij register (Ex.P/11C). Further, the mother of the victim (PW-01) has also not specifically stated the date of birth of the victim (PW-02) in her statement before the Court. Even otherwise, neither other document with regard to the age or date of birth of the victim (PW-02), as provided under Section 94 (ii) of the POCSO Act i.e. birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat has been brought on record nor ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test has been conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board. As such, the age of the victim (PW-02) to be less than 12 years on the date and time of the offence has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted for

¶42

Page No.8 of 10 IN CRA-156-2023

¶43

offence under Section 9(m) of POCSO Act, punishment of which has been provided under Section 10 of POCSO Act and, instead thereof, the appellant is liable to be convicted for offence under Section 07 of the POCSO Act, punishment of which, has been provided under Section 08 of the POCSO Act and, under the facts and circumstance of the present case, I am inclined to award the minimum sentence of 03 years’ RI to the appellant for having committed offence under Section 07 read with Section 08 of the POCSO Act. I hereby hold accordingly.

¶44

(11) So far as sentence of 04 years’ RI alongwith fine and default stipulation, awarded to the appellant for offence under Section 354(b) of IPC is concerned, in light of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, where the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for offence under the provisions of the POCSO Act, no separate punishment/sentence is required to be awarded to the appellant for having committed offence under Section 354(b) of IPC and is liable to be set aside. It is also held accordingly.

¶45

(12) Lastly, for offence under Section 354 of IPC, the minimum punishment has been prescribed for the same is 01 year, but under the facts and circumstances of the present case and further considering the act of the appellant, as narrated by the victim (PW-02) in her statement before the Court, I deem it appropriate to sentence him for 02 years’ RI by reducing it from 04 years’ RI for having committed offence under Section 354 of

¶46

Page No.9 of 10 IN CRA-156-2023

¶47

IPC. I hereby hold accordingly.

¶48

(13) Concludingly, in view of foregoing analysis, it is ordered accordingly:

¶49

(i) the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 10 of POCSO Act is hereby set aside and, instead thereof, he is convicted for offence under Section 08 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 02 months;

¶50

(ii) the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 354(b) of IPC is hereby affirmed, but in light of Section 42 of POCSO Act, no separate sentence is required to be awarded to the appellant for the same, as the appellant has been awarded sentence for offence under Section 08 of POCSO Act, which is higher is degree, therefore, the sentence of 04 years’ RI alongwith fine amount and default stipulation, as awarded by the learned trial Court to the appellant for offence under Section 354 (b) of IPC is hereby set aside;

¶51

(iii) further, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 354 of IPC is also hereby affirmed, but

¶52

Page No.10 of 10 IN CRA-156-2023

¶53

instead of 04 years’ RI, as awarded by the learned trial Court, he is sentenced for 02 years’ RI, however, the fine sentence and default stipulation, as awarded by the learned trial Court alongwith the direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently, shall remain intact.

¶54

(iv) Since, the appellant remained in jail from 12.05.2022 i.e. for more than 03 years, he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter/crime.

¶55

(14) Consequently, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶56

(15) Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and action.

¶57

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶58

s@if

Shatrughan Jangde @ Paku v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shatrughan Jangde @ Paku v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdayal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Sarita Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ranu Sinha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Chandra Vikas Rathore Vs State Bank Of India

Rakesh Roshan Lahre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lalesh @ Lala Barle Vs the State of Chhattisgarh