The Supreme Court examined a chilling case of child sexual assault from rural Chhattisgarh. The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, hearing arguments from both sides without much interruption, ultimately chose not to disturb the conviction but modified the sentence after looking closely at the circumstances.
“The materials are consistent; however, the sentence deserves reconsideration,” the bench observed during the discussion, a comment that subtly hinted at the direction the court might be leaning toward even before the final pronouncement.
Background
The appeal was filed by Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari, convicted by a Special POCSO Court in Kunkuri and whose conviction was later upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The appellant had been sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act a provision dealing with aggravated sexual assault on a child below 12.
The prosecution’s case, briefly, was built on the mother’s testimony. On 15 August 2021, she reportedly walked into her house around 4:30 pm and found the appellant sitting near the legs of her four-year-old daughter, wearing only a half-short. The child’s underwear was lowered, the frock pushed up, and she was crying in pain. The mother later told the police that the child complained of pain in her private parts.
An FIR followed the same day, and the medical examination noted redness in the private area, though no external injuries or bleeding. While the defence insisted this weakened the prosecution, the trial court believed the consistency of the parents’ account outweighed the gaps.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court spent considerable time revisiting the evidence, especially the trial court’s narration of the attempted testimony of the child (PW-1). The bench seemed visibly moved when the record was read aloud - how the four-year-old froze, cried, and refused to even look at the accused after he removed his mask in court. Eventually, the judge had to stop the proceedings to calm the child, but she still could not speak when brought back.
“The child’s frightened state, merely upon seeing the accused, is itself telling,” the court noted, pointing out that trauma sometimes speaks louder than spoken testimony.
The Court also reminded that medical evidence does not always override clear eyewitness accounts.
“When the ocular evidence is consistent and trustworthy, the absence of external injuries does not discredit the prosecution,” the bench remarked while analysing the mother’s and father’s statements.
The defence had pressed that there was no proof of penetration. But the bench brushed this aside, saying the law on aggravated sexual assault covers a wider range of acts and does not require penetration to sustain conviction.
Decision
Finally, the bench upheld the conviction, calling the findings of the trial court and High Court “eminently legal and proper.” However, noting that the appellant had already spent about four years and five months in jail, the judges felt the maximum sentence of seven years was not strictly necessary in this case.
Thus, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to six years of rigorous imprisonment while retaining the fine of ₹6,000 and the one-year default sentence.
“The appeal is partly allowed to the said extent,” the bench declared, bringing the matter to a close.
Case Title:- Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Type:- Criminal Appeal No. 4732 of 2025
