High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:3496 NAFR CRA No. 270 of 2021 Kanhaiya Lal Bareth S/o Anuj Ram Bareth Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bardula, Po- lice Station Kosir, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bilha, District Bi- laspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant For State : : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Duber, Advocate Mr. G.L. Uike, Panel Lawyer
Legal Reasoning
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge 20.01.2025 Judgment on Board 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2021 passed in Special Sessions Case (POCSO Act) No. 21/2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court, Bilaspur, district Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentences Under Section 363 of IPC R.I. for 07 years and fine amount of Rs. 2000/- in default of fine amount additional Imprisonment for 04 2 months. Under Section 376/511 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine amount of Rs. 20000/- in default of fine amount additional imprisonment for 06 months. Both the sentences will run concurrently 2. The case in nutshell is that on 29.12.2017, the uncle of the prosecutrix stated that he was peacefully sleeping in his home when his wife came to him and told that someone is taking somewhere. Upon which he ran towards the village and when he reached near the bushes the prosecutrix was shouting. He saw that one person was removing his trousers as well as the clothes of the prosecutrix. When he caught that person, he told his name as Kanhaiya Lal and is a residence of Bardulla village. The villagers beaten him due to which the appellant sustained injury in his face and neck. On the basis of oral report complaint was lodged against the appellant as Crime No. 415 of 20017 for the offence punishable under Section 363, 376, 511 of the Indian Penal Code and also section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant was in jail since 30.12.2017. 3. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after other necessary proceedings of investigation, a case was registered against the accused appellan and charge sheet was filed. 4. In order to prove the charges against he appellant, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the appellant 3 was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellant. 5. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial court has convicted and sentences the appellant as mentioned in para one of this appeal. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant. There is no sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellant. He stated that PW-03 Dr. Nikita Kanwar has clearly stated in her report that there is no internal as well as no external injury found in the body of the prosecutrix. He further contended that the maximum sentence imposed by the trial court to the appellant RI for 10 years in which he has already spent almost 07 years in jail, he is in jail since the year 2017. Thus, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was aged about 06 years and the act committed by the appellant is in serious in nature. He further contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned trial court and the impugned judgment of the Trial Court needs no interference and the appellant is not entitled to get acquittal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment passed by the trial court as well as the other material available on record, with utmost circumspection. 4 9. In order to consider the age of victim girl, I have to examine the evidence/material placed on record by the prosecution. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the certificate from the Municipal Council, Bilha (Ex. P-2). The certificate has been endorsed by Revenue Sub-Inspector Raghulal Lahara (PW-04) which has not been denied by the accused appellant. Inspector Satyanarayan Shukla (PW-10) stated that Shubh Yadav Assistant Sub Inspector, Office of Nagar Panchayat Bilha had separately written the birth certificate, which has not been denied by the accused appellant. 10. Victim Pw-01 and her grand mother PW-02 has stated in his deposition that the age of the prosecutrix is 06 years. 11. Birth certificate, Article A-01 and Ex. P-18 , the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 23.07.2011 which is considered as a reliable evidence as it has been issued by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics (Finance, Planning, Economic and Statistics Department) of the M.P. Govt. local body Nagar Panchayat, Bilha. With regard to the age of the victim, the trial court has relied upon the above mentioned documents. The finding recorded by the trial court regarding the age of the victim is based upon the evidence available on record which is not perverse nor contrary to the records. Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is established that at the time of incident, victim was only 06 years of age. 12. In order to consider the version of the victim, I have to examine the 5 evidence/material placed on record by the prosecution. Victim PW-01 has stated in her deposition that she had gone to Jaitkhabh to eat prasad and when she was returning from there, the accused appellant picked her up. The accused appellant told her that if she walks till the gate, he will give her money. Then the accused appellant took her on foot to the platform of the railway station and then towards the dense bush. Then the accused took off her pants and cloths. The accused appellant took off his own clothes and was trying to do dirty things with her. The accused appellant told her that if she does not listen to him, he will hit her with stone. When the accused appellant threatened her she called out uncle, then her uncle PW-06 reached there and took the accused appellant to the police station. Statement of the prosecutrix has also been supported by PW-06, PW-02, PW-07, PW-11 and PW-12. 13. In order to consider the medical report of the victim, I have to examine the evidence available on record produced by the prosecution. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Nikita (PW-03) . According to the report given by PW-03 there was no external as well as no internal injury found on the body of the victim. The hymen was perfectly intact. In her considered opinion there was no sexual intercourse took place with the victim by the accused appellant. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence of the victim who has specifically stated the role of the appellant, evidence of her uncle, grand mother and aunt. 15. It is quite vivid that there was no previous enmity by and between 6 the parties and the accused obtained the benefit of circumstances tried to rape the victim. Moreover the victim was only 06 year old and her statement cannot be held to be false. There is no reason as to why the statement of the victim cannot be held to be the most important aspect of the instant case. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and section 376/511 of IPC. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court with regard to the conviction part. Ordered accordingly. 16. In view of the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby affirmed/maintained. 17. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly,
Decision
dismissed and stands disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza