2026:CGHC:7014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1150 of 2016 Shivkumar Gadhewal S/o Foolchand Gadhewal Aged About 20 Years R/o Vil- lage Ghanwa, Thana Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhat-

tisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Janjgir, Civil And Revenue Dis-

trict Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Dr. Surendra Dewangan, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,

Order on Board

09/02/2026

1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2016, passed in Special Session Case No. 38/2015, by which the learned Ad- ditional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, (CG), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sen-

tenced as follows:-

Convicted under Sec- Sentenced to tions

10 of the POCSO R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.

5000/- and, in default of pay- ment fine, additional R.I. for 6 months

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that the prosecutrix is a resident of Village Dhanwa. Shivkumar, who is also a resident of the same village, used to frequently harass the prosecutrix. Whenever she went any- where, he would wink at her on the way, throw stones at her, and on one occasion caught hold of her while saying that she should marry him. There is a school adjacent to the house of the prosecutrix. The accused wrote the name of the prosecutrix on the wall of the school and also wrote his own name along with the name of the prosecutrix on the para- pet of the pond and on trees, using filthy and obscene words, thereby defaming her. Whenever the prosecutrix went to school, the accused used to follow her and harass her. Despite repeated warnings and ad- vice given by the father of the prosecutrix to the accused, he did not de- sist from his acts. On 15.06.2015, when the accused again started teasing and molesting the prosecutrix, she informed her elder brother, Dhirendra, about the incident. When her elder brother went and ob- jected to the accused’s conduct and asked him to stop teasing her, the accused threatened him with dire consequences and threatened to kill him. Due to the repeated acts of harassment by the accused, the pros- ecutrix became highly distressed. In respect of the said incidents, the prosecutrix lodged a report at the police station, pursuant to which Po- lice Station Janjgir registered an offence against the accused. The case was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, state- ments of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded, the spot map was prepared, and after completion of the entire investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence avail-

able on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 10 of POCSO Act and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above of this judgment.

Hence this appeal.

5. The appellant was in custody from 01.07.2015 to 03.07.2015 (3 days),.

Thereafter he was in jail from 07.09.2016 to 27.10.2016 (total one months and 23 days).

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, es- pecially regarding the location, timing and nature of the alleged act. He further submits that the conviction is primarily based on the sole testi- mony of the victim, without any corroborating evidence. The medical ev- idence does not establish any injury. Moreover, the FIR is silent on ma- terial facts which later appeared in deposition. No independent or eye- witness corroborates the prosecution story. The trial Court ought to have disbelieve the statement given by witnesses, as they are related witnesses. Learned