Chhattisgarh HC Convicts Man Of Sexual Harassment For Gagging Woman And Pressing Her Breasts; Sentence Limited To Time Served And ₹15,000 Fine

The State appealed the Special Judge’s judgment acquitting Sadhan Kundu and his co-accused of offences under the IPC, the POCSO Act and the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution alleged that Kundu had applied vermilion to the victim’s head, later caught her, gagged her, lifted her kurti and pressed her breasts, and that the act was recorded on video.

The victim’s father lodged the complaint on 10 May 2017 regarding an alleged incident on 24 January 2017.

The trial court acquitted both accused; the co-accused died during the appeal, which abated against her.

Under Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, an appellate court may review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must account for the reinforced presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha, Tota Singh v. State of Punjab and Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. state that interference is warranted where the trial court’s approach is manifestly illegal or perverse, or material evidence has been unjustifiably ignored.

A hostile witness’s testimony is not erased and may be relied on to the extent it is credible and consistent with the evidence (Khujji v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana).

Section 354A(1)(i) IPC covers physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, punishable under Section 354A(2); Sections 354B and 354C require their respective statutory elements.

The POCSO Act applies only where the victim is a child, meaning under eighteen.

Proof of electronic records is subject to the principles in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal.

The court upheld the finding that the victim’s age had not been proved to be below eighteen: the school-record witness was not its author and the basis for the recorded date of birth was not produced; the radiological estimate of 16–18 years carried a two-year margin of error.

The victim’s credible testimony that Kundu caught her, gagged her, lifted her kurti and pressed her breasts established unwelcome physical contact with an explicit sexual overture under Section 354A(1)(i); her hostile status did not require rejection of that testimony, and the absence of external injuries did not discredit it.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish the specific elements of Sections 354B and 354C, or publication or transmission of sexually explicit material under Section 67A: the witnesses’ accounts and the deficiencies in the video’s provenance and chain of custody left the electronic evidence inadequately proved.

The POCSO acquittal therefore stood, and the other acquittals disclosed no basis for appellate interference.

The court set aside Kundu’s acquittal under Section 354A IPC, convicted him under Section 354A(1)(i), and sentenced him to the period already undergone, with a fine of ₹15,000; in default, he must undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment.

The fine was directed to be paid within three months and, upon deposit, to the victim as compensation under Section 395 BNSS, 2023.

The acquittals for all other offences were affirmed.