Aftab @ Altaf Ansari vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 415 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth referred to as, “the BNSS), challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Judge (POCSO), Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as, “the Sessions Judge”) in Special Criminal Case No.168/2021. By the impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner :-

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim/prosecutrix was a 13-year-old minor girl at the relevant time. She used to chat through his brother’s mobile phone using her Instagram ID, namely, “sana_cutie_25”, and used to upload her photographs on the said Instagram account. On 08.08.2021, she informed her mother that the appellant had created a fake Instagram ID in her name, i.e., “sana_chutie_25”, uploaded her obscene/nude photographs thereon, and was blackmailing and threatening her to make a video call showing her without clothes. He also threatened to make the said photographs viral if she did not comply with his demands. On checking the appellant’s mobile phone, the victim/prosecutrix’s mother found her photograph, the fake Instagram ID and obscene photographs. Thereafter, an FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged by mother of victim/prosecutrix against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 509 (ख) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”), Sections 11 & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth, “POCSO Act”), and Sections 66(C), 66(D), 67 and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, “IT Act”) at Police Station Urla, District Raipur.

During investigation, Spot map (Ex. P-4) was prepared by the police. The statements of the victim/prosecutrix and the other witnesses were recorded. Class II progress report of the victim/prosecutrix was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-6. The obscene messages and photograph of the victim/prosecutrix from the Instagram ID were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-5. A certified copy of the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-17) was seized from the Principal vide seizure memo Ex. P-18. The statement of the victim/prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused was arrested. The mobile SIM numbers used in the incident were seized from the accused vide seizure memo Ex.P-8. The Cyber Forensic Report and certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act were also collected. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Section 509 (ख) of the IPC, Sections 11 & 12 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 66(C), 66(D), 67 & 67(A) of the IT Act.

Learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act, Sections 509(ख) and 506 Part-II of the IPC, and Sections 67(क), 67 & 67(ख) of the IT Act against the appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents, including Article A and Article A-1. Statement of the appellant / accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution and claimed innocence. The appellant has not examined any witness in his defence and exhibited one document, i.e., Ex.D-1.

After considering the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge, Raipur convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred an instant appeal.

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the appellant does not want to press this appeal as regards the conviction part of the impugned judgment; rather, he would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He would further submit that the appellant has been sentenced to a maximum jail sentence of 2 years. He remained in custody from 09.08.2021 to 26.07.2022, from 03.03.2026 to 11.05.2026, and thereafter from 11.05.2026 till date, i.e., for about 1 year & 6 months, totalling 550 days. He further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the contrary, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record along with record of the Court below.

Though learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not pressing the instant appeal on the conviction part of the impugned judgment, however, the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), seizure of the appellant’s mobile phone and the Cyber Forensic Laboratory report (Ex.P-21) clearly corroborate that the appellant edited the photograph of the minor prosecutrix, sent obscene material to her and threatened to make the same viral to compel her to appear naked on video call. Though there is no evidence of threat of death or grievous hurt, the offence of intimidation by threatening to circulate her obscene video is proved. Thus, upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court holding the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences is hereby affirmed.

So far as the sentence part is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant has already undergone about 1 year & 6 months, of the jail sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in further detention to undergo the remaining period of sentence, rather the ends of justice would be served if his jail sentence under the aforesaid sections is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly.

In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned Trial Court is maintained; however, the jail sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e., from 09.08.2021 to 26.07.2022, from 03.03.2026 to 11.05.2026, and from 11.05.2026 till date, totalling 1 year & 6 months (550 days). The sentence of fine imposed by the learned Trial Court is maintained. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent.

The appellant is reported to be in jail, he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter/case.

Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and needful, if any.