IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 22.12.2025 Pronounced on: 09.01.2026.

Uploaded on:09.01.2026.

Navdeep Cheema ..Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG Haryana.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , JUDGE The case was fixed for arguments on application for suspension of sentence. However, with consent of both counsels, the appeal has been taken up for final hearing.

1. The appeal challenges judgment of conviction dated 25.07.2025 and order on quantum of sentence dated 29.07.2025 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Special Court to try the offences of Rape and under POCSO Act) Kurukshetra in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2023, arising out of FIR No. 746 dated 04.12.2022, under Sections 506, 509 IPC, 10, 12 of POCSO Act, Police Station Sadar Thanesar.

2. Vide impugned judgment, appellant was convicted as under:

Under Section Punishment Fine

12 of POCSO Act Rigorous imprisonment for a Rs.8000/-, in default period of three years of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months

354-D IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a Rs.2000/-, in default period of three years of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The complaint, which formed basis of the FIR, leading to prosecution of the appellant was lodged by prosecutrix ‘H’ who stated that she was 17 years old. Navdeep Cheema, who was residing in Mohan Nagar, where she attended tuition, had been harassing her for last one year. He nursed bad intention towards her and made obscene gestures. On account of his acts, her studies suffered. She was a student of Class 12^th in a private school but due to the activities of the appellant, she could not attend school since August. That day, on 04.12.2022, at around 01:15 p.m. appellant started roaming in street in front of her house and uttered obscene words, making obscene gestures. When her parents objected to the same, he started throwing brickbats at their house and threatened to kill her and her parents. He also threatened to get her kidnapped on the way. They had recorded the incident. Legal action was prayed for. Police investigated the matter. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Appellant was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. On completion of investigation challan was submitted for his trial.

4. After supplying copy of the police report to the appellant, he was charge sheeted under Sections 354, 354-D, 506 IPC Sections 8, 12 of POCSO Act and Section 66-E of Information Technology Act (in short I.T.

Act). He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Prosecution examined Inspector Mukesh Kumar, who prepared Ex.P1 scaled site plan, as PW1; prosecutrix ‘H’ as PW2; her father ‘A’ as PW3; Deepak Kumar, MPHW as PW4 to prove her date of birth and SI Santosh Investigating Officer as PW5.

6. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence as false and claimed innocence. In defence, he examined six witnesses.

7. Learned Trial Court heard the prosecution, learned defence counsel and on the basis of birth certificate Ex.P6, proved by PW4 Deepak Kumar, held that prosecutrix ‘H’ was a minor being less than 18 of years and a child within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act.

8. Relying upon statement of prosecutrix ‘H’ and her father ‘A’ it was held that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant sexually harassed the minor, stalked her and committed an offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 354-D IPC. No conviction under Section 506 IPC and 66-E of I.T. Act was recorded for lack of evidence. Appellant was held guilty under Sections 12 of the POCSO Act and Section

354-D IPC and convicted thereunder.

9. On the strengt