Pintu Thakur @ Ravi vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 797
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 16689-16690/2024)
PINTU THAKUR @ RAVI ETC. APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH RESPONDENT(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.04.2024 passed
in Criminal Appeal No.1686/2023 and Criminal Appeal
No.2130/2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the
appellants are before this Court. By the said judgment, the
appellants were convicted as under:

3. Learned counsel for the appellants made a two-fold
Signature Not Verified
submission: firstly, he contended that the very conviction of
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.06.03
10:53:28 IST
Reason:
the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track
1

Special Court (POSCO Act) Ramanujganj, District Balrampur in
Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No.36/2020 was erroneous.
4. Secondly, it was submitted that if this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the conviction of the appellants
then at least the appeals could be considered vis-a-vis
reduction in their sentence having regard to Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for
short, “POCSO Act”). He contended that the minimum sentence
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is twenty years whereas the
Trial Court has imposed life imprisonment for the remainder of
the natural life which is a harsh punishment. It was submitted
that the appellants at the time of the incident were in their
early twenties and have completed a little over five years of
incarceration. In the circumstances, the appeals filed by the
appellants may be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent-
State vehemently objected to any of the contentions raised by
the appellants herein being accepted. He submitted that the
High Court has rightly affirmed the judgment of conviction
which has been rendered by the Trial Court. Further the
sentence of life imprisonment which shall be imprisonment for
the remainder of natural life is in accordance with Section 6
of the POCSO Act. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments
advanced at the Bar. We are not inclined to interfere with the
2

judgment of conviction passed by the Special Court and which
has been affirmed by the impugned order. However, we have
considered the second submission made by the learned counsel
for the appellants which is in light of Section 6 of the POCSO
Act. Section 6 of the said Act reads as under:
“6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual
assault.—
Whoever, commits aggravated penetrative sexual
assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than ten years but
which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall
also be liable to fine.”
7. On a reading of the same, we find that the minimum
punishment delineated under the said Section is twenty years
but which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean
imprisonment for remainder of natural life of the accused and
shall be liable to fine or with death. The Special Court has
not ordered death penalty but has not considered any mitigating
circumstance in the instant case, instead the higher punishment
of life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of the
person has been imposed which has been affirmed by the High
Court.
8. However, the minimum sentence under Section 6 of the
POCSO Act is twenty years. Bearing in mind the fact that the
appellants herein were in their early twenties when the
incident took place and the fact that now they have completed
only five years of incarceration and even for completion of the
3

minimum sentence it would mean another fifteen years, we find
that the appellants are now in their mid-twenties and even if
the minimum sentence is to be completed they would be in their
early forties.
9. We find that the interest of justice would be served in
the instant case, if we reduce the sentence imposed on them
from imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for
the remainder of natural life to twenty years.
10. Consequently, we allow the appeals in part by reducing
the sentence to twenty years.
The appeals are allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………,J.
( B.V. NAGARATHNA )
…………………………………………………………,J.
( SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA )
NEW DELHI;
MAY 27, 2025
4

ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)Nos.16689-16690/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-04-2024
in CRA No. 1686/2023 26-04-2024 in CRA No. 2130/2023 passed by the
High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur]
PINTU THAKUR @ RAVI ETC. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 264176/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 264178/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 27-05-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
(PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Md. Farman, AOR
Mr. Salman Khan, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Tanwar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR
Mr. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in part in terms of the
signed non-reportable order which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
5