[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Suddhu Singh Kol vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026

                                                  1

                          Digitally
                          signed by
                          SOURABH
                SOURABH   PATEL
                PATEL     Date:
                          2026.03.09
                          17:36:09
                          +0530




                                                                  2026:CGHC:11222
                                                                               NAFR
         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                        CRA No. 168 of 2025

1 - Suddhu Singh Kol S/o Late Prem Kol, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Amagohan, Bailetpara, Chowki Belgahana, P.S. Kota, District
Bilaspur (C.G.).
                                                                           ... Appellant
                                                versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Chowki
Belgahana, P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.).
                                                                        ... Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order/Judgment on Board

09.03.2026

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS,

2023 (corresponding to Section 374 of CrPC) has been preferred

by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act),

Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case

(POCSO Act) No. 129/2023 whereby the appellant has been

convicted and sentenced as under:

           Conviction                                             Sentence
      Offence under Section                       RI for 02 years with fine of
                                                  Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
      452 of IPC
                                                  fine, additional RI for 01 month.


   Offence under Section       RI for 02 years with fine of
                               Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
   354 of IPC
                               fine, additional RI for 01 month.

2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 15.07.2023, the

complainant/victim submitted a written report at the Belghana

Police Station, Kota, Bilaspur (C.G.), stating that on 13.07.2023

at about 1:00 pm, the appellant/accused Suddhu Singh, came

to her house, enquired about her well-being and asked about

her family members. She told him that no one was at home and

went outside. The appellant/accused then left her house. The

next day, 14.07.2023, at about 11:30 am, the

appellant/accused came to her house again. At that time, she

was in her room and no one else was at home. The appellant

entered her room, caught hold of her and started kissing her

forcefully. When she resisted, he said "take money, just give it

once". She managed to free herself, ran out of the house, and

called her brother, narrating the incident to him. Based upon

such report, the police has registered the FIR for the offence

punishable under section 452, 354 and 354(A) of IPC and

Section 8 of POCSO Act against the accused/appellant.

3. The prosecution has in all examined 07 witnesses and exhibited

16 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined

under Section 313 CrPC, abjured the guilt and pleaded false

implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the

evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on

record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment acquitted the

appellant from the offence punishable under Section 7/8,

11(i)/12 of POCSO and convicted and sentenced the appellant,

as mentioned in the opening paragraph.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he

does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the

occurrence is related to the year 2023 and the accused

appellant remained in jail for about 189 days, therefore, he

prays that the sentence awarded to the appellant for the

aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned

judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the

Appellant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also

perused the material available on record including the

impugned judgment.

7. Having gone through the material available on record and the

statements of Ramvilas Kahar (P.W.1), Laxmi Chauhan (P.W.2),

Ankit Swarnakar (P.W.3), Victim (P.W.4), Melaram Kathotia

(P.W.5), Ashok Mishra (P.W.6) and Father of the victim (PW-7),

establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in

question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in

the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the

conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 452 and 354 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed.

8. However, as regards sentence, in Mohammad Giasuddin v.

State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme

Court while emphasizing the reformative approach has

exposited the words expressed by 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". Para-9 of the said judgment is quoted

below :

"9. Western jurisprudes 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 Nicodotis, 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 defense. 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."

9. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin

(supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence

imposed upon the appellant is 02 years under section 452 and

354 of IPC and the appellant remained in jail for about 189 days

and as per the Arrest Memo (Ex.P.14), the appellant is illeterate

and works as a labourer and thus looking to the over-all

circumstances it will be just and proper if the sentence RI for

02-02 years awarded by the trial court for offence under section

452 and 354 of IPC is reduced to RI for 01-01 years.

Accordingly, The conviction u/s 452 and 354 of IPC is

maintained and the sentence is reduced from 02-02 years to 01-

01 year. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial