Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1317
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4732 OF 2025
DINESH KUMAR JALDHARI
…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
…RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Heard learned Advocate Ms. Varnika Gupta
for the Appellant and learned Advocate Ms. Ankita
Sharma for the respondent who appeared through
video conferencing.
2. At the instance of appellant–convict, the
challenge in this present appeal is addressed to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.11.13
19:25:09 IST
Reason:
judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 of the High
Page 1 of 13
Court of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1348 of 2023.
Thereby the High Court dismissed the appeal before
it and confirmed judgment and order dated
18.04.2023 of learned Special Judge (POCSO),
Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh in Special
Case No. 17 of 2021.
2.1. Trial Court convicted the appellant under
Section 9(m) and Section 10 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
sentenced him to seven years of rigorous
imprisonment and further imposed a fine of Rs.
2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
further normal imprisonment for one year.
3. Stated in nutshell, as the prosecution case goes,
the incident of commission of crime took place on
15.08.2021. The mother of the victim reported that
her husband returned home with one Virendra and
appellant Dinesh Ram, after collecting the coal
wood. It was around 4:30 p.m. when the mother of
the victim went inside to give food to the appellant
Page 2 of 13
and at that time, she found that the appellant had
wore only half short ( Chadda ) and was sitting near
the legs of her minor daughter aged 4 years. On
being questioned and confronted by the mother, the
appellant fled away. The mother (PW-3) noticed that
the clothing of her daughter had gone inappropriate,
and that her daughter was crying in pain. The victim
told her that she had pain in her private part. The
mother found the private part of the daughter to be
wet.
3.1. On the same day an FIR bearing Crime No.
52 of 2021 was registered with Duldula Police
Station, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh by the mother of the
victim Sukanti Bai (PW-3) against the appellant
under Section 376, 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and under Section 5 and 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’). The victim
was sent for medical examination and came to be
examined by Dr. Priyanka Toppo (PW-6), her
statement came to be recorded under Section 164 of
Page 3 of 13
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the
Judicial Magistrate. The appellant came to be
arrested.
3.2. The birth certificate of the victim seized by
the police reflected that the date of birth of the victim
was 13.02.2017, establishing that the age of the
victim was between 4 to 5 years. A chargesheet was
filed in respect of the offences under IPC and under
the POCSO Act as mentioned above. At the end of
the trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced
under the POCSO Act, which conviction and
sentence, was confirmed by the High Court.
4. On behalf of the appellant, assailing the
impugned judgment and order convicting and
sentencing the appellant, it was mainly contended
that there were no eyewitnesses to fortify the
occurrence of incident and the narration of the
incident by the mother (PW-3) of the victim was not
supported by independent evidence. Nowhere there
were any marks of any external injury on the victim,
Page 4 of 13
nor there was bleeding on her private part as per the
Medical Officer (PW-6) evidence, submitted learned
advocate for the appellant. It was next submitted
that the redness in the vagina seen could happen by
rubbing over the clothes by the victim or due to
infection. It was therefore vehemently submitted
that the appellant deserved benefit of doubt and
should have been acquitted.
4.1. On the other hand, learned advocate for the
State of Chhattisgarh supported the conviction and
sentence, to submit that they were based on clear
facts, cogent circumstances and reliable evidence.
5. While examining the merits of conviction
and sentence of the appellant, the material evidence
may be usefully noticed which offers a detailed
account of the incident. Father (PW-2) and mother
(PW-3) of the victim were consistent. Their evidence
offers a detailed account of the incident. Both PW-3
and PW-2 deposed that PW-2 with the appellant and
his brother had gone to forest to take coal wood.
Page 5 of 13
They came back at 2 p.m. and had liquor at the
house of PW-2 and PW-3. Thereafter, PW-3 gave food
to Virendra. Dinesh was inside. After giving food,
PW-3 and her husband PW-2 were sitting outside
their house. Virendra came out after eating the food.
The victim daughter aged 4 years was sleeping in the
house.
5.1. It was further stated that at about 4:30
p.m. PW-3 went inside to give food to the appellant.
At that time, she saw the appellant wearing half
shorts, sitting near the legs of the minor daughter.
When asked what he was doing there, the appellant
stood up and ran away. According to PW-3, the
underwear of her daughter was down till her knees,
and the frock was pulled up to the chest. She also
stated that she called her husband by ringing an
alarm and immediately, her husband came out to
catch hold the accused who was running away and,
hit him near the courtyard with a stick twice, but
the appellant managed to flee. The crying daughter
when asked about what had happened, she told in
Page 6 of 13
rural language that she had pain in her private part.
PW-3 stated that the appellant was from her colony
and she knew him. There is no good reason not to
disbelieve the details revealed and the narration
given about the incident by PW-3 - mother of the
victim.
5.2. It may be true that Dr. Priyanka Toppo (PW-
6) did not find external injury marks on the victim’s
body and stated that there was no bleeding of any
kind. According to Medical Officer Dr. Nitish Anand
(PW-8), the appellant was capable of having an
intercourse. It is well settled that the medical
evidence will take a backseat and even if do not
corroborate with the ocular evidence, where the
ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, the later
would be allowed to prevail. In the medical evidence
in the instant case, the redness in the vagina of the
victim was noticed. In any way the Court is inclined
to hold that the account of the incident given by PW-
3 – the mother inspires confidence and deserves to
be accepted.
Page 7 of 13
5.3. The victim was brought in the witness-box.
In paragraph 18 of the judgment, the High Court has
highlighted the sequence of events that took place in
course of the evidence of the victim (PW-1). PW-1
was studying at Anganwadi. Upon being found that
the PW-1 understood the questions and was capable
of deposing, she was subjected to evidentiary
examination.
5.4. The very account of the evidence recorded
by the trial court forming part of the record is
reproduced hereinbelow,
“1/ Witness was shown the Accused present in the
Court, who was standing behind the curtains, after
getting his mask removed as to whether she identifies
that person, then Witness stated that yes, on asking
about his name she stated nothing and started
getting frightened and did not look at the Accused.
2/ On seeing the fright of the Victim, Accused was
sent out of the Courtroom and Evidence was stopped
for a while to make the Victim normal.
3/ After 15 Minutes, Victim was again enquired
normally but she not give any answer and that is why
this evidence is being stopped again for one hour.
Sd/-
16/11/2021
(Ajit Kumar Rajbhanu)
Special Judge Kunkuri…”
Page 8 of 13
“Again (At 1:45)
4/ Victim was called again for evidence with her
mother, Victim is not giving any answers and is crying
and even after many efforts, she is not telling
anything before this Court. Hence, Examination of the
Witness is closed on this point.
Cross Examination by Mr. Bishnu Prasad Kuldeep,
Counsel for the Accused.
5/ Nil.
Statement read over to the Witness
Accepted as Correct Typed on my instructions
Sd/ Sd/
16/11/2021 16/11/2021
(Ajit Kumar Rajbhanu) (Ajit Kumar Rajbhanu)
Special Judge Kunkuri Special Judge Kunkuri”
5.5. It is manifest from the above that when the
accused present in court removed his mask, the
victim got frightened and did not even look at the
accused. The victim was required to be sent out of
the courtroom, and recording of the evidence was
stopped. When the victim was found to be normal
after some time, the recording of evidence though
commenced had to be discontinued having regard to
the mental status of the victim (PW-1). It is recorded
as could be noticed, that at the time when the victim
was called again for tendering her evidence with her
mother, she was crying and was not able to speak
anything in the court as the victim PW-1 was
Page 9 of 13
frightened by the presence of the accused. Hence,
her examination was closed.
5.6. The fact that the victim was in a frightened
state upon seeing the accused is a pointer in itself.
The whole sequence of events in course of recording
of evidence of PW-1, was tale-telling. The shock
related to the happening of the incident which
continued with the victim post-incident made its
statement in the trauma-filled behaviour of the
victim who was a 4 year-old girl.
6. Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines sexual
assault and Section 8 is the punishment for the said
offence, which is imprisonment of either description
for a term to be not less than three years, and which
may extend to five years, with fine. The offence of
aggravated sexual assault is Section 9. The
punishment for the aggravated sexual offence is
provided in Section 10, which is the imprisonment
for a term not to be less than 5 years, and the same
may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to pay
Page 10 of 13
the fine. In the present case the appellant is
convicted under Section 9(m), the trial court and the
High Court having concurrently found that that the
appellant had committed sexual assault on a child
below 12 years, which falls under Section 9 read
with Section 10.
7. The evidence highlighted above go to
establish the commission of offence. The
appreciation of evidence of the trial court and
consideration thereof by the High Court could be
said to be eminently legal and proper, warranting no
interference by this Court.
8. A vain attempt was made on behalf of the
appellant to press the aspect that there was no
suggestion of, much less evidence of penetration in
the sexual assault by the appellant and therefore the
conviction and sentence was not justified. The Court
is not impressed with this submission, given the
facts and evidence on record.
Page 11 of 13
9. The conviction of the appellant recorded by
the trial court and affirmed by the High Court is
resultantly upheld. At the same time, the sentence
imposed on the appellant is of 7 years’ rigorous
imprisonment which is maximum sentence
prescribed under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The
appellant has so far undergone imprisonment for
about 4 years and 5 months. In the totality of the
facts and circumstances, the Court is inclined to
reduce the sentence requiring the appellant to
undergo the rigorous imprisonment for 6 years,
instead. The imposition of fine of Rs. 6000/- and the
simple imprisonment of one year in default of
payment of fine would stand.
10. The judgment and order of the High Court
is modified to above limited extent by substituting
the sentence as above.
11. The appeal is partly allowed to the said
extent.
Page 12 of 13
In view of the disposal of the appeal as
above, all pending interlocutory applications would
not survive and are accordingly disposed of.
…………………………………..,J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
…………………………………..,J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
NEW DELHI;
November 13, 2025.
(JS)
Page 13 of 13
2025 INSC 1317
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4732 OF 2025
DINESH KUMAR JALDHARI
…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
…RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Heard learned Advocate Ms. Varnika Gupta
for the Appellant and learned Advocate Ms. Ankita
Sharma for the respondent who appeared through
video conferencing.
2. At the instance of appellant–convict, the
challenge in this present appeal is addressed to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.11.13
19:25:09 IST
Reason:
judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 of the High
Page 1 of 13
Court of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1348 of 2023.
Thereby the High Court dismissed the appeal before
it and confirmed judgment and order dated
18.04.2023 of learned Special Judge (POCSO),
Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh in Special
Case No. 17 of 2021.
2.1. Trial Court convicted the appellant under
Section 9(m) and Section 10 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
sentenced him to seven years of rigorous
imprisonment and further imposed a fine of Rs.
2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
further normal imprisonment for one year.
3. Stated in nutshell, as the prosecution case goes,
the incident of commission of crime took place on
15.08.2021. The mother of the victim reported that
her husband returned home with one Virendra and
appellant Dinesh Ram, after collecting the coal
wood. It was around 4:30 p.m. when the mother of
the victim went inside to give food to the appellant
Page 2 of 13
and at that time, she found that the appellant had
wore only half short ( Chadda ) and was sitting near
the legs of her minor daughter aged 4 years. On
being questioned and confronted by the mother, the
appellant fled away. The mother (PW-3) noticed that
the clothing of her daughter had gone inappropriate,
and that her daughter was crying in pain. The victim
told her that she had pain in her private part. The
mother found the private part of the daughter to be
wet.
3.1. On the same day an FIR bearing Crime No.
52 of 2021 was registered with Duldula Police
Station, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh by the mother of the
victim Sukanti Bai (PW-3) against the appellant
under Section 376, 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and under Section 5 and 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’). The victim
was sent for medical examination and came to be
examined by Dr. Priyanka Toppo (PW-6), her
statement came to be recorded under Section 164 of
Page 3 of 13
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the
Judicial Magistrate. The appellant came to be
arrested.
3.2. The birth certificate of the victim seized by
the police reflected that the date of birth of the victim
was 13.02.2017, establishing that the age of the
victim was between 4 to 5 years. A chargesheet was
filed in respect of the offences under IPC and under
the POCSO Act as mentioned above. At the end of
the trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced
under the POCSO Act, which conviction and
sentence, was confirmed by the High Court.
4. On behalf of the appellant, assailing the
impugned judgment and order convicting and
sentencing the appellant, it was mainly contended
that there were no eyewitnesses to fortify the
occurrence of incident and the narration of the
incident by the mother (PW-3) of the victim was not
supported by independent evidence. Nowhere there
were any marks of any external injury on the victim,
Page 4 of 13
nor there was bleeding on her private part as per the
Medical Officer (PW-6) evidence, submitted learned
advocate for the appellant. It was next submitted
that the redness in the vagina seen could happen by
rubbing over the clothes by the victim or due to
infection. It was therefore vehemently submitted
that the appellant deserved benefit of doubt and
should have been acquitted.
4.1. On the other hand, learned advocate for the
State of Chhattisgarh supported the conviction and
sentence, to submit that they were based on clear
facts, cogent circumstances and reliable evidence.
5. While examining the merits of conviction
and sentence of the appellant, the material evidence
may be usefully noticed which offers a detailed
account of the incident. Father (PW-2) and mother
(PW-3) of the victim were consistent. Their evidence
offers a detailed account of the incident. Both PW-3
and PW-2 deposed that PW-2 with the appellant and
his brother had gone to forest to take coal wood.
Page 5 of 13
They came back at 2 p.m. and had liquor at the
house of PW-2 and PW-3. Thereafter, PW-3 gave food
to Virendra. Dinesh was inside. After giving food,
PW-3 and her husband PW-2 were sitting outside
their house. Virendra came out after eating the food.
The victim daughter aged 4 years was sleeping in the
house.
5.1. It was further stated that at about 4:30
p.m. PW-3 went inside to give food to the appellant.
At that time, she saw the appellant wearing half
shorts, sitting near the legs of the minor daughter.
When asked what he was doing there, the appellant
stood up and ran away. According to PW-3, the
underwear of her daughter was down till her knees,
and the frock was pulled up to the chest. She also
stated that she called her husband by ringing an
alarm and immediately, her husband came out to
catch hold the accused who was running away and,
hit him near the courtyard with a stick twice, but
the appellant managed to flee. The crying daughter
when asked about what had happened, she told in
Page 6 of 13
rural language that she had pain in her private part.
PW-3 stated that the appellant was from her colony
and she knew him. There is no good reason not to
disbelieve the details revealed and the narration
given about the incident by PW-3 - mother of the
victim.
5.2. It may be true that Dr. Priyanka Toppo (PW-
6) did not find external injury marks on the victim’s
body and stated that there was no bleeding of any
kind. According to Medical Officer Dr. Nitish Anand
(PW-8), the appellant was capable of having an
intercourse. It is well settled that the medical
evidence will take a backseat and even if do not
corroborate with the ocular evidence, where the
ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, the later
would be allowed to prevail. In the medical evidence
in the instant case, the redness in the vagina of the
victim was noticed. In any way the Court is inclined
to hold that the account of the incident given by PW-
3 – the mother inspires confidence and deserves to
be accepted.
Page 7 of 13
5.3. The victim was brought in the witness-box.
In paragraph 18 of the judgment, the High Court has
highlighted the sequence of events that took place in
course of the evidence of the victim (PW-1). PW-1
was studying at Anganwadi. Upon being found that
the PW-1 understood the questions and was capable
of deposing, she was subjected to evidentiary
examination.
5.4. The very account of the evidence recorded
by the trial court forming part of the record is
reproduced hereinbelow,
“1/ Witness was shown the Accused present in the
Court, who was standing behind the curtains, after
getting his mask removed as to whether she identifies
that person, then Witness stated that yes, on asking
about his name she stated nothing and started
getting frightened and did not look at the Accused.
2/ On seeing the fright of the Victim, Accused was
sent out of the Courtroom and Evidence was stopped
for a while to make the Victim normal.
3/ After 15 Minutes, Victim was again enquired
normally but she not give any answer and that is why
this evidence is being stopped again for one hour.
Sd/-
16/11/2021
(Ajit Kumar Rajbhanu)
Special Judge Kunkuri…”
Page 8 of 13
“Again (At 1:45)
4/ Victim was called again for evidence with her
mother, Victim is not giving any answers and is crying
and even after many efforts, she is not telling
anything before this Court. Hence, Examination of the
Witness is closed on this point.
Cross Examination by Mr. Bishnu Prasad Kuldeep,
Counsel for the Accused.
5/ Nil.
Statement read over to the Witness
Accepted as Correct Typed on my instructions
Sd/ Sd/
16/11/2021 16/11/2021
(Ajit Kumar Rajbhanu) (Ajit Kumar Rajbhanu)
Special Judge Kunkuri Special Judge Kunkuri”
5.5. It is manifest from the above that when the
accused present in court removed his mask, the
victim got frightened and did not even look at the
accused. The victim was required to be sent out of
the courtroom, and recording of the evidence was
stopped. When the victim was found to be normal
after some time, the recording of evidence though
commenced had to be discontinued having regard to
the mental status of the victim (PW-1). It is recorded
as could be noticed, that at the time when the victim
was called again for tendering her evidence with her
mother, she was crying and was not able to speak
anything in the court as the victim PW-1 was
Page 9 of 13
frightened by the presence of the accused. Hence,
her examination was closed.
5.6. The fact that the victim was in a frightened
state upon seeing the accused is a pointer in itself.
The whole sequence of events in course of recording
of evidence of PW-1, was tale-telling. The shock
related to the happening of the incident which
continued with the victim post-incident made its
statement in the trauma-filled behaviour of the
victim who was a 4 year-old girl.
6. Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines sexual
assault and Section 8 is the punishment for the said
offence, which is imprisonment of either description
for a term to be not less than three years, and which
may extend to five years, with fine. The offence of
aggravated sexual assault is Section 9. The
punishment for the aggravated sexual offence is
provided in Section 10, which is the imprisonment
for a term not to be less than 5 years, and the same
may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to pay
Page 10 of 13
the fine. In the present case the appellant is
convicted under Section 9(m), the trial court and the
High Court having concurrently found that that the
appellant had committed sexual assault on a child
below 12 years, which falls under Section 9 read
with Section 10.
7. The evidence highlighted above go to
establish the commission of offence. The
appreciation of evidence of the trial court and
consideration thereof by the High Court could be
said to be eminently legal and proper, warranting no
interference by this Court.
8. A vain attempt was made on behalf of the
appellant to press the aspect that there was no
suggestion of, much less evidence of penetration in
the sexual assault by the appellant and therefore the
conviction and sentence was not justified. The Court
is not impressed with this submission, given the
facts and evidence on record.
Page 11 of 13
9. The conviction of the appellant recorded by
the trial court and affirmed by the High Court is
resultantly upheld. At the same time, the sentence
imposed on the appellant is of 7 years’ rigorous
imprisonment which is maximum sentence
prescribed under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The
appellant has so far undergone imprisonment for
about 4 years and 5 months. In the totality of the
facts and circumstances, the Court is inclined to
reduce the sentence requiring the appellant to
undergo the rigorous imprisonment for 6 years,
instead. The imposition of fine of Rs. 6000/- and the
simple imprisonment of one year in default of
payment of fine would stand.
10. The judgment and order of the High Court
is modified to above limited extent by substituting
the sentence as above.
11. The appeal is partly allowed to the said
extent.
Page 12 of 13
In view of the disposal of the appeal as
above, all pending interlocutory applications would
not survive and are accordingly disposed of.
…………………………………..,J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
…………………………………..,J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
NEW DELHI;
November 13, 2025.
(JS)
Page 13 of 13