The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that offences of sexual assault against children must be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency can be extended to perpetrators under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court made this observation while upholding the conviction and sentence of three men who were found guilty of committing aggravated sexual assault on a minor girl.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed three criminal appeals filed by Panku Kashyap, Manoj @ Kanwal Baghel, and Pinku Kashyap, confirming the trial court’s judgment awarding each of them 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
“Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act,” the Court observed, quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred on April 26, 2019, when the 13-year-old prosecutrix had gone to attend a wedding function in Makdi village with her friend. She was forcibly taken to a nearby field by four individuals and assaulted. She later identified Pinku, Panku, and Manoj with the help of light from their mobile phones.
The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged the next day. The police conducted a thorough investigation, seized relevant clothing items of the victim and the accused, and sent them for forensic examination. The trial was conducted before the Special Fast Track Court, Kondagaon, which convicted all three accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced them on August 25, 2021.
Appellants’ Contentions
Each of the convicts filed separate criminal appeals:
- Panku Kashyap (CRA 984/2021) argued that he was a minor at the time of the incident and was falsely implicated.
- Manoj @ Kanwal Baghel (CRA 1021/2021) questioned the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of corroborative evidence.
- Pinku Kashyap (CRA 1085/2021) contended that there was no test identification parade and that no injuries were found on the victim.
Findings of the High Court
The High Court found that:
- The prosecutrix’s age was duly established through the primary school admission register, which recorded her date of birth as July 6, 2006, making her 13 years old at the time of the incident.
- The Court recognised the prosecutrix as a “sterling witness”, noting that her testimony was consistent and trustworthy. It referred to Supreme Court precedents which hold that credible testimony of a victim of child sexual abuse does not require corroboration.
- Medical evidence showed injuries to the private parts of the accused shortly after the incident, supporting the prosecution’s version.
- The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports confirmed the presence of biological material on the clothing of the victim and the accused, reinforcing the chain of evidence.
Final Judgment
Concluding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court dismissed all three appeals and affirmed the sentence.
“The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellants is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed,” the Bench held.
The Court directed that copies of the judgment be furnished to the convicts and informed them of their right to appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
