Chattisgarh High Court
Sukhiram Dhritlahre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 April, 2025
2025:CGHC:16085
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 606 of 2024
Sukhiram Dhritlahre S/o Late Narayan Dhritlahre Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No.
05, Basna, P.S. Basna, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Basna, District-
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms Sunita Manikpuri, Dy GA
——————————————————————————————————————
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Judgment on Board
04.04.2025
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction, and order of
sentence dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO),
Saraipali, District-Mahasamund CG, in Special Criminal POCSO Case- 15 of
2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under with
default stipulation:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 354 of the RI for 05 years and fine of
IPC Rs.500/-
Under Section 342 of the RI for one year and fine of
IPC Rs.500/-
Under Section 8 of the RI for 05 years and fine of
POCSO Act, 2012 Rs.500/-
Cra 606 of 2024
2
2. Brief facts of the case are that, PW-3, father of the victim lodged a written
complaint Ex.P3 to the Police on 08.08.2023 that at about 8 pm when he along
with his minor daughter/victim had gone to the appellant for exorcism, present
appellant took the victim inside the room, asked her father to stay outside the
room, and outraged her modesty. The victim came out from the room by
weeping, and informed the incident to him and her mother. When they asked
from the appellant as to why he did like that, he gave threatening to them, then,
the written report has been lodged, and based on which FIR Ex.P4 was
registered for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO
Act‘).
3. The victim was sent for her medical examination to the Community
Health Centre, Basna, where she was examined by Dr.Abhilasha Gautam
(PW8), who gave report Ex.P9. While medically examining the victim, no
external injuries have been found on her body. With respect to age and date of
birth of the victim, Class-5 Mark-sheet of the victim has been seized vide
seizure memo Ex.P2. The Police has also seized the School Register from the
Government Girls Primary School, Basna, vide seizure memo Ex.P11, and
after retaining the attested true copy of the said register Ex.P12C, original
register was returned back to the School. Spot Map Ex.P5 was prepared by
the Police, and Ex.P8 was prepared by the Patwari. Appellant was arrested on
09.08.2023.
4. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC have been
recorded, and statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 164 of
lthe CrPC, and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed
Cra 606 of 2024
3
against the appellant for the offence under Sections 354, 342 of the IPC, and
Section 8 of the POCSO Act before the learned trial Court.
5. Learned trial court has framed charge against the appellant for the
offence under Section 354, 342 of the IPC, and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act .
He denied the charge appearing against him and claimed trial.
6. In order to bring home the charge against the appellant, prosecution has
examined 13 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 of the CrPC of the
appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the material appearing
against him, pleaded innocence, and submitted that he has been falsely
implicated in the offence. Two defence witnesses have also been examined
by the appellant in his support.
7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
prosecution, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant
as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal by the
appellant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material
omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which
cannot be made basis to convict the appellant for the offence in question. The
evidence of the victim has not been supported by her father. Totally improbable
story has been developed by father of the victim that inside the room, appellant
tried to outrage modesty of the victim, whereas, father of the victim was
standing outside the room. He would also submit that there is no legally
admissible evidence with reference to age of the victim, as she was minor. He
Cra 606 of 2024
4
would also submit that parents of the victim have not supported the prosecution
case, and in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence, the appellant
cannot be convicted, and he is entitled for acquittal.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and would
submit that victim being a minor girl, aged about 13 years, she fully supported
her case and stated in her evidence that on the date of incident, appellant took
her inside the room, and outraged her modesty. Immediately on the same day,
report has been lodged, but for minor omissions, or contradictions, which are
trivial in nature, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are fully reliable and
sufficient to hold conviction of the appellant for the offence in question. She
would also submit that age of the victim has also been proved by the School
Register, which has been proved by PW6-Head Master of the School, and
therefore, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. The First and foremost question arises for consideration would be the
age of the victim, as to whether she was minor on the date of incident, or not.
The prosecution mainly has relied upon the School Register Ex.P12C, which is
sought to be proved by PW6- Ms Shobhana Koshta, Head Master of the
School. He stated in his evidence that on 11.08.2023 the Police seized the
School register with respect to age and date of birth of the victim vide seizure
memo Ex.P11. After retaining the attested true copy of the said Register
Ex.P12C, original register was returned back to the School, which he brought
on that day with him. According to the register, date of birth of the victim is
Cra 606 of 2024
5
10.02.2011. In cross-examination, she stated that the entries made in the
register are not in her own handwriting, and she is the Head Master of the
School since 2022. It was not challenged by the appellant that wrong entries
have been made in the register, or she is not any knowledge that who has
made entry in the said School Register. One line cross-examination is there
that the entries have not been made in her own handwriting. Further, from the
Class 5 mark-sheet of the victim Ex.P14, the same date of birth ie 10.02.2011
reflects, and the seizure of said mark-sheet was proved by PW12- Shivanand
Tiwari, Police Inspector, and the Police who has seized the mark -sheet has
not been cross-examined that any wrong entry has been made or he created
the said document Ex.P14 to take its advantage.
12. PW1-victim has stated in her evidence that at the time of incident she
was aged about 13 years, and her date of birth is 08.12.2011. Age of the victim
as shown by her in her chief examination has not been challenged specifically
by the defence in her cross-examination. Further, age of the victim has also
been proved by PW8- Dr Abhilasha Goutam, who medically examined her and
in cross-examination, she stated that when she asked from mother of the
victim, she disclosed her age as 13 years, and age of the victim has been
verified from her Aadhar Card, but the doctor has not been further cross-
examined by the defence, rather, from the cross-examination, it is proved that
the victim is aged about 13 years. Which also corroborates the entries made
in the School Register Ex.P12C, and her Class 5 mark-sheet Ex.P14.
Therefore, it cannot said that victim was major on the date of incident, and it is
found that prosecution has proved she was minor on the date of incident.
Cra 606 of 2024
6
13. So far as the offence of outraging and wrongful confinement of the victim
in a room is concerned, from the evidence of PW1-victim, it comes that on the
date of incident when she was being taken by her father to the appellant for
exorcism, he took the victim inside the room, and sent her father outside of the
room. Then, he outraged her modesty by pressing her chest. When her father
raised suspicion, he entered the room. Appellant threatened him that why he
came inside the room. When they came out of the room, appellant confessed
his guilt and asked him not to disclose the incident to anyone. Appellant called
them again on the next day, but the victim scared by the behaviour of the
appellant, disclosed the incident to her mother, and thereafter, report has been
lodged. In cross-examination, she remain firm in saying that the appellant has
outraged her modesty, when she had gone to the appellant for exorcism.
Nothing could be extracted by the defence from her evidence so that she could
be disbelieved.
14. PW3-father of the victim has stated in his evidence that on the date of
incident, he took his daughter to the appellant’s house for exorcism. He took
her inside the room, and kept him outside the room. When sometime elapsed,
he entered inside the room, and when they returned back to their house, the
victim was weeping and when they asked from the victim, she disclosed that
the appellant has pressed her breast. Thereafter, they again went to the
house of the appellant, then, he gave threatening to him that he could do
whatever he wants to do. In his cross-examination, the fact that he went to the
house of the appellant along with his minor daughter could not be rebutted in
his cross-examination.
Cra 606 of 2024
7
15. PW-5 is the mother of the victim. She too has stated in her evidence that
when the victim and her father came back from the house of the appellant,
victim disclosed about the incident to her, and thereafter, they lodged report.
When they asked from the appellant as to why he did this act he started
threatening them.
16. From these evidences, the prosecution has proved guilt of the appellant
for the offence in question that on the date of incident, when father of the victim
took her to house of the appellant for exorcism, the appellant kept the father
outside of the room, and outraged the modesty of the victim inside the room.
After due appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court has convicted the
appellant for the offence in question, for which this Court is also in agreement
with the finding recorded by the trial court, which is neither perverse, nor
contrary to the record. Therefore, this Court upheld conviction of the appellant
for the offence under Section 342 and 354 of the IPC, and Section 8 of POCSO
Act.
17. So far as the sentence is concerned, the offence of Section 8 of the
POCSO Act provides minimum sentence of three years, and Section 354 of the
IPC provides minimum sentence of one year. Considering the fact that
appellant is presently aged about 57 years, having innumerable responsibilities
of his family, nature of his profession, and also the allegation against the
appellant, further that he is in jail since 09.08.2023, the ends of justice would
meet if his sentence would be reduced for minimum sentence provided for the
offence of Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
Cra 606 of 2024
8
18. Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs State
of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, has observed in its judgment as
under:
“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
defence. 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 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.”
19. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties,
nature of allegation, minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section
8 of the POCSO Act, and also the age of the appellant, and further considering
the law laid down in Giasuddin (supra) case, the conviction and sentence
Cra 606 of 2024
9
awarded to the appellant for the offence of Section 342 of the IPC is
maintained. However, while maintaining his conviction under Section 354 of
the IPC, his sentence is reduced to RI for three years, instead of five years,
and the fine sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence of Section
354 of the IPC is maintained. For the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO
Act, his conviction is maintained and the sentence is reduced to RI for three
years, instead of RI for five years, while the sentence of fine imposed upon the
appellant is also maintained. All the sentences to run concurrently.
20. With above modification of sentence, appeal is partly allowed.
21. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 09.08.2023, and he shall
serve the entire sentence as awarded by this Court.
22. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be sent
to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if
any.
23. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned
Superintendent of Jail, where the appellant 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.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
JUDGE
padma
Digitally signed by V
PADMAVATHI
Date: 2025.04.11
11:03:33 +0530