Sonaruram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 July, 2026

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Sonaruram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 July, 2026

                                                                                 SLP (Crl.) No.2089/2025

     ITEM NO.18                             COURT NO.11                     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.) No(s).2089/2025

     [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-03-2024
     in CRA No. 372/2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at
     Bilaspur]

     SONARURAM                                                              Petitioner(s)

                                                   VERSUS

     STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                                                  Respondent(s)


     IA No. 27038/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
     JUDGMENT

IA No. 27042/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

Date : 07-07-2026 This matter was called for hearing today.

SPONSORED

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU

[PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH]

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Susmita Lal, AoR
Mr. Kamakhya Srivastava, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Jha, A.A.G.
Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AoR

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Notice was issued only on the point of quantum but the

Signature Not Verifiedmaterials on record and the evidence before the Trial
Digitally signed by
HARPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.07.08
16:23:15 IST
Reason: Court, being clearly against the petitioner, conviction

under the POCSO Act, in our considered opinion, does not

1
SLP (Crl.) No.2089/2025

require any interference and, accordingly, the sentence of

20 years rigorous imprisonment, being the minimum sentence

under the POCSO Act, we do not find any ground to interfere

in the quantum also and for that reason, we gave another

opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner to

address on merits.

3. Having considered the matter in depth and in entirety

and taking an overall view, we are not persuaded to

interfere, either in the conviction or in the sentence.

4. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

(HARPREET KAUR)                                         (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH)                                     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR




                                     2