Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Subrat Sarkar vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.415/2025]
SUBRAT SARKAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal arises from an order dated 21.12.2023
passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRA
No.260/2020 by which the High Court, while dismissing the
appeal of the appellant, affirmed the conviction and
sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court in
Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.12/2019, under
Sections 323, 366, 376 AB and 506(2) IPC.
4. The appellant has been awarded 3 years RI and fine
under Section 366 IPC; RI for Life (till natural death) and
fine under Section 376 AB IPC; and 6 months RI each under
Signature Not Verified
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2026.04.15
Sections 323 and 506 (2) IPC. All sentences are to run
Digitally signed by
17:33:34 IST
Reason:
1
concurrently.
5. On 06.01.2025, a limited notice was issued on the
quantum of sentence awarded under Section 376 AB IPC. The
order dated 06.01.2025 is reproduced below:
“1. Delay condoned.
2. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Goburdhun
for the petitioner submits that the present
petition has been filed only to the extent
of quantum of sentence as the petitioner,
who was 23 years old at the time of
incident, having no criminal antecedents and
coming from rural background, has been
sentenced to imprisonment for the rest of
his natural life for the offence under
Section 376AB of the IPC. He submits that
considering the background and the
circumstances, under which the offence was
committed, the Trial Court and the High
Court should have taken into consideration
the mitigating circumstances and impose the
minimum sentence of 20 years instead of the
imprisonment for rest of his natural life.
3. Having regard to the said submission, let
the notice be issued only for limited
purpose of considering the sentence imposed
by the Courts below, returnable after six
weeks.”
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant comes from rural background and was a young man
aged 23 years at the time of incident. Besides, the Doctor
could not definitely opine whether the victim was subjected
to sexual intercourse more so because the hymen of the
victim was found intact. In such circumstances, it is
2
argued there was no justification to award maximum sentence
under Section 376 AB. Rather, minimum of 20 years would be
sufficient.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
both courts relying on oral testimony and medical report
have convicted the accused for offence punishable under
Section 376 AB IPC. Moreover, full penetration is not
required for commission of such an offence. Therefore,
merely because hymen was found intact, the conviction under
Section 376 AB cannot be faulted.
8. However, respondent counsel could not show any past
criminal antecedents of the appellant and could not also
dispute that the appellant comes from a rural and backward
area of the State of Chhattisgarh.
9. Having regard to the young age of the appellant at the
time of incident as also that he hails from rural and
backward area of the State, and has no previous criminal
antecedents, we are of the view that the minimum sentence
of 20 years RI for the offence punishable under Section 376
AB IPC would be sufficient as a deterrent as well as an
opportunity to reform oneself.
10. Consequently, we partly allow this appeal and reduce
3
the life sentence awarded to the appellant, under Section
376 AB IPC, to 20 years R.I. Rest of the order passed by
the High Court is affirmed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
……………………………………………………………………………J
[MANOJ MISRA]
………………………………………………………………………………J
[MANMOHAN]
New Delhi
April 13, 2026
4
ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.14 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 FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO.415/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
21-12-2023 in CRA No. 260/2020 passed by the High Court of
Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur]
SUBRAT SARKAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
Date : 13-04-2026 This petition was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. D.N.goburdhun, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Biswas, Adv.
Mr. G.Jayendra Balaji, Adv.
Ms. Vandana Khanorkar, Adv.
Ms. Gowri Goburdhun, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Atul Jha, A.A.G.
Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed
order which is placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(KAVITA PAHUJA) (SAPNA BANSAL)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
5