Mangal Bhardwaj vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1650 Chatt

                                                                            NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       Criminal Appeal No. 604 of 2021

   • Mangal Bhardwaj, S/o Mehattar Bhardwaj, Aged About 28 Years R/o
       Village Basbinouri, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
       Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     ---- Appellant

                                    Versus

   • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar-
       Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Smt. Savita Tiwari, Advocate.

For State/Respondent : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board

09/08/2021

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

25/01/2021 passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No.19/2018 by

the Special Judge (POCSO), Balodabazaar, (C.G.) wherein appellant

has been convicted and sentenced as under :

                   Conviction                           Sentence
           U/s 8 of POCSO Act,          R.I. for three years and fine amount of
                                          Rs.500/- with default stipulations

2. In the present case, at the date of incident, age of the

prosecutrix/victim was about 11 years. On 21.02.2018 at about 11.40

AM, father of prosecutrix namely Sugriv Kannouje (PW-4) lodged a

written report stating therein that today at about 9:00 AM when his

daughter/victim came into the field alone, then on the way, the

appellant caught hold her hand and touched her private parts and also

pressed her breast. At that time when one Budharu Satnami reached

at the spot, appellant fled away from there. On the basis of the said

report, offence has been registered. Statement of the

prosecutrix/victim girl and other witnesses were recorded under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a charge-

sheet was filed. To prove the guilt of the accused/appellant,

prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. No defence

witness has been examined. Statement of appellant under Section 313

of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused/appellant has pleaded

innocence and false implication in the matter.

3. After completion of trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced

the appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence,

this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that

appellant is innocent and is falsely implicated in the present case. She

further submits that trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant

without there being sufficient and clinching evidence against him. There are material contradictions and omissions occurred in the

statement of the prosecutrix/victim girl and other witnesses. Statement

of the prosecutrix/victim is suspicious. It appears that due to some

previous dispute, appellant has been falsely implicated in the case.

Therefore, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supports the

impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial

Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the

record, statement of witnesses and annexed documents minutely.

7. There is no dispute on the point that at the time of alleged incident,

age of prosecutrix/victim (PW-3) girl was about 11 years. With regard

to the alleged incident, prosecutrix/victim (PW-3) in her Court

statement has supported the entire case of the prosecution and

deposed accordingly. Particularly, in question No. 8 and 25, prosecutrix

has categorically answered/deposed that appellant had caught hold

her and pressed her breast and on this point she has remained firm

during her cross-examination. Statement of the prosecutrix was duly

corroborated by the sole eye-witness of the case namely Budharu

(PW-1). He also remained firm during his cross-examination. There is

nothing in their cross-examination, on the basis of which their

statements can be disbelieved.

8. Looking to the evidence adduced by the prosecution and particularly

after going through the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-3) and

Budharu (PW-1), it is clear that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant to hold him guilty. In my considered view, the trial Court has

rightly convicted the appellant.

9. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash