2026:CGHC:6827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1036 of 2016 Ajit Rao S/o Vijay Rao Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sandi, Police Station And Post Office Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Ms. Pooja Yadav on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board

06/02/2026

1. The present criminal appeal is filed by the appellant under Section

374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2016 passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 25/16 whereby the appellant stands convicted as under:

CONVICTION SENTENCE u/s 354(D) of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.

5000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 6 months.

u/s 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.

5000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 6 months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim lodged an oral report at Police Station Arang, District Raipur, stating that she is 16 years old and studies in Class 10 at Village Bhansoj. She goes daily on foot from Samoda to Bhansoj School. Her neighbour, Ajit Rao (the accused), for about the last four months, has been forcibly saying “I love you” to her on the way and writing similar words on the bridge of the road, thereby insulting and harassing her. He constantly follows her and keeps saying “I love you””, due to which she feels distressed. On the basis of the said written report, the police of Police Station Arang registered Crime No. 13/16 against the accused under Section 354 (D) of the IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and commenced investigation. Thereafter, the statements of the victim, her mother, and other witnesses were recorded. The school progress report was seized in relation to proof of the victim’s age. A spot map was prepared at the place of occurrence. The accused was arrested, and after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for the offences under Section 354(D) of IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is bad, illegal, perverse and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record. That, the learned trial court erred in holding that the appellant has committed offence punishable under Section 354(D) of IPC and Section 12 of PCOSO Act, 2012. The judgment of the learned trial court is based on surmises and conjectures. The learned trial court has utterly failed to appreciate the evidence in proper and right perspective. The evidence of prosecutrix, i.e. Ku. Prabha Sahu (PW-1) and her parents as well as her friends are not corroborated by other prosecution witness. The learned trial court erred in appreciating the legal position prevailing in the case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he does not want to press this criminal appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant at present is aged about 42 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2016. The appellant has remained in jail from 10.01.2016 to 14.01.2016. After passing of the judgment dated 01.08.2016, the learned trial court suspended the sentence of the appellant till 30.08.2016 and on 22.08.2016, the appellant was enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

5. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the ap