Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 02-11-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – State of Chhattisgarh (Special APP, Bhanupratappur, District‑Kanker). Respondents – 1) Sadhan Kundu, aged about 31 years, resident of Village Panavar Nayapara, P.S. Bande, District‑North Bastar, Kanker; 2) Ku. Usha Kundu (deceased during pendency of appeal).
  • Proceedings: Appeal (ACQA No. 605 of 2019) filed under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal judgment dated 15‑02‑2019 of the Special Judge, Bhanupratappur, Kanker, in Special Case No. 37/2017. The trial court had acquitted both respondents of offences under IPC Sections 354A, 354B, 354C, POCSO Act sections, and IT Act Section 67A.
  • Allegations: Complaint (Ex‑P/6A) lodged on 10‑05‑2017 by the victim’s father (PW‑6) alleging that on 24‑01‑2017 the minor daughter was allured, vermilion applied on her head, her modesty outraged, and an obscene video was recorded. Accused No.1 (Sadhan Kundu) allegedly threatened the victim with blackmail and forced marriage; Accused No.2 allegedly pressured the victim to marry her brother (Accused No.1).
  • Investigation: FIR (Ex‑P/7) registered; medical examination at Community Health Centre (report Ex‑P/4) showed no external injuries; radiological age‑assessment (Ex‑P/14) gave bone age 16‑18 years with ±2‑year margin; school register (Ex‑P/3C) seized; victim’s statements recorded under Sections 164 and 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex‑P/5, Ex‑P/6). Mobile phones seized from complainant (Ex‑P/9) and accused (Ex‑P/18) and sent for cyber forensic analysis to CFSL, Bhopal. Witnesses (15 in total) examined.
  • Trial Court Findings: Acquitted both respondents on all charges, citing contradictions, lack of conclusive proof of victim’s minority, and doubts on electronic evidence.
  • Appellate Arguments: State argued that prosecution proved offences beyond reasonable doubt, especially sexual harassment and child pornography; defence argued lack of proof, victim’s age ≥18, delay in filing complaint, and that evidence was insufficient.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha; Tota Singh v. State of Punjab; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka; Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P.; Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra; Amit @ Lalu v. State (IPC Sections 354 & 354A); various Supreme Court observations on appellate powers and evidentiary value of hostile witnesses.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court partially allowed the appeal:
  • Set aside the acquittal for the offence under IPC Section 354A (sexual harassment) and convicted Sadhan Kundu.
  • Upheld the acquittal for offences under IPC Sections 354B, 354C, IT Act Section 67A, and all POCSO provisions, finding the victim was not a child under the Act (age not proved below 16).
  • Sentencing: Accused already served 5 months 30 days in custody; the Court sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs 15,000. In default of payment, he shall undergo one month of rigorous imprisonment. The fine must be deposited within three months and, upon receipt, be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023.
  • Directions: The trial court record to be sent back for compliance; copy of this judgment to be forwarded to the trial court.

Topics: Legal Appeal, Sexual Harassment Conviction