SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Narendra Kumar Vyas, JJ.
 
Rajiv Kumar @ Raju S/o Baratu Ram - Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer- Chakradhar Nagar
District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh   - Respondent
CRA No. 363 of 2020, CRA No. 404 of 2020
Decided On : 14-02-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For Appellants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Mr. Anuroop Panda and Mr.
Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocates.
For Respondent: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Adv.

The prosecution failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix and the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal.

Headnote:

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6, 8, 12, 21; Indian Penal Code - Sections 354, 376(2)(n), 376(3) - Conviction and sentencing of appellants for sexual offences against a minor - The trial court's reliance on school records for age determination was questioned due to lack of corroborative evidence and the absence of the person who made the entries - The prosecutrix's inconsistent statements and conduct raised doubts about her consent and the credibility of the prosecution's case. (Paras 14, 20, 35)

Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix, aged about 14 years, went missing and was later found in a lodge. She alleged multiple sexual assaults by various accused, but her statements were inconsistent, and she had opportunities to escape but did not.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix's age and the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the evidence of her age, and whether the appellants were guilty of the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence of the prosecutrix must be credible and corroborated, and the prosecution's failure to provide sufficient evidence led to the conclusion that the appellants were not guilty.

Result: All criminal appeals are allowed, and the appellants are acquitted of the charges.

Judgment :

(Rajani Dubey, J.)

Since all these appeals arise out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.2.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raigarh in Special Criminal Case under the POCSO Act No.9/2019, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

ConvictionSentence
Appellant No.1 Rajiv Kumar in CRA No. 363/2020
Under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code.RI for two years, fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer additional RI for three months.
Under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.RI for three years, fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer additional RI for four months.
Appellant No.2 Satya Narayan Dewangan @ Satya in CRA No.363/2020
Under Section 12 of POCSO Act.RI for two years, fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer additional RI for three months.
Appellant Tej Kumar in CRA No.404/2020 and appellant Kailash Kumar Bareth in CRA No. 79/2021
Under Section 21 of POCSO Act.RI for six months, fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer additional RI for three months.
Under Section 6 read with 17 of POCSO Act.RI for twenty years, fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer additional RI for six months.
Appellant Akbar Khan @ Raj in CRA No. 559/2020
Under Section 376(2)(n)/376(3) of IPC.RI for twenty years, fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer additional RI for six months.
Under Section 6 of POCSO Act.RI for twenty years, fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer additional RI for six months.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.2.2019 father of the prosecutrix lodged a missing report stating that on 18.2.2019 at around 11 pm her daughter/prosecutrix, aged about 14 years, had gone out of home without informing anyone and is not traceable. Based on the written complaint (Ex.P/1), the police registered FIR (Ex.P/2) against unknown person under Section 363 of IPC . During investigation, she was recovered on 24.1.2019 from a Rain Basera (Night Shelter/Lodge) at Bus Stand, Transport Nagar vide recovery panchanama Ex.P/4. It revealed during the course of investigation that on 18.1.2019 in the night accused Vivek @ Vicky Yadav and accused Rajeev Kumar Yadav @ Raju offered lift to the prosecutrix in their van. While she was sitting in the van, accused Rajeev Yadav kissed her and accused Vivek @ Vicky took her to his home and committed rape on her. Next day, accused Rajeev Yadav took her from the house of accused Vivek and dropped her off at Chandrapur.

03. The prosecutrix purchased one used mobile at Chandrapur from one mobile shop and accused Kailash, who was working in the said mobile shop, purchased a SIM in his name and gave it to her and made arrangement for her night stay in the house of his acquaintance Naina Manjhi. Next day morning, accused Kailash got her dropped at Sarangarh through his friend accused Tej Kumar Nishad @ Raju. Thereafter, accused Tej Kumar left her at Sarangarh with accused Satyanarayan @ Satya Dewangan who molested her. Accused Satyanarayan @ Satya, Tej Kumar and Kailash Bareth took the prosecutrix to a garden for discussing about making arrangement for her stay where accused Akbar Khan also came. There accused Kailash Bareth took back the SIM from the prosecutrix which was given by him to her. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Satyanarayan and Kailash, the prosecutrix went to the house of accused Akbar where he made her drink liquor at night and committed repeated sexual intercourse with her. Next day morning, accused Satyanarayan and Akbar made her sit in a bus bound for Raigarh. At Raigarh Bus Stand, she happened to meet accused Amit Singh who got her stay at a lodge and in the evening took her on a motorcycle on the pretext of roaming around and committed rape on her.

04. After recovery of the prosecutrix, her statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded vide Ex.P/22. She was produced before the Child Welfare Committe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top