2026:CGHC:9733 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1051 of 2018 Pramod Thakur S/o Durga Thakur Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Bakal, Police Station Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District :

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Diwakar on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board

24/02/2026

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 01/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 02.12.2016 at about 1:00 PM, the appellant entered the house of the prosecutrix and caught hold of her hand. On her raising alarm, her mother and grand- mother reached the spot, upon which the appellant pushed the prosecutrix and fled away. On the basis of the report lodged by the prosecutrix, the police registered the offence and conducted investigation. During investigation, the investigating officer pre- pared the spot map, recorded the statements of witnesses, seized relevant documents regarding the age of the prosecutrix from the school records and got her medically examined. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused be-

fore the competent Court.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Rajnandgaon (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence avail- able on record vide judgment dated 02.06.2018, acquitted the ap- pellant from Sections 354, 354-A of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and convicted the appellant for the offences under Sec-

tion 452 and 323 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.

4. The appellant was in jail from 04.12.2016 to 05.01.2017 (32 days)

during trial and then from the date of judgment, i.e. 02.06.2018 to

20.07.2018 ( 48 days), in total 2 months 20 days.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is not sustainable in law. It is argued that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and that there existed prior dispute be- tween the families. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant entered the house after mak- ing preparation for causing hurt or assault, which is an essential ingredient of Section 452 IPC. It is therefore prayed that the con- viction under Section 452 IPC be set aside or suitably modified. And since the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2016 and he has undergone more than 2 months and 20 days awarded by the trial Court There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appel-

lant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and the conviction recorded against the appellant does not require any interference.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. The point arises for determination in this appeal is “Whether th