Pintu Thakur @ Ravi vs State Of Chhattisgarh

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:

Conviction Under Jail Sentence Rigorous Fine In Default of Section Payment of Fine 363 of the Indian 5 years Rs.500/- 1 month Penal Code (for short, the IPC) 366 of the IPC 5 years Rs.500/- 1 month 342 of the IPC 1 year Section 6 of the Imprisonment for life Rs.15,000/- 2 months POCSO Act, 2012 which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants made a two-fold Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by submission: firstly, he contended that the very conviction of 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