NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Judgment reserved on :10/06/2024 Judgment delivered on : 20/06/2024 Criminal Appeal No. 1280 of 2021 Sukhalram Dewangan, son of Amarsai Dewangan, aged about 23 years, resident of Village-Rampur (Ramgarhpara), Police Station-Odgi, District-Surajpur (CG)

---- Appellant (In Jail) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station-Surajpur, District-Surajpur (CG)

For Appellant : Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Division Bench:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, J Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

CAV Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey, J The appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Surajpur in Special Sessions Case No.29/2020 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.05.2020 the prosecutrix made a written complaint (Ex.P/1) at Police Station- Surajpur to the effect that the appellant has been committed forcible sexual intercourse with her for the last one year on the pretext of marriage and when she asked him for marriage, he refused. Based on this report, FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against the appellant on the same date under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "the Act of 2012"). With the consent of mother of the prosecutrix, medical examination of the prosecutrix was done and in respect of her age, copy of Dakhil-Kharij register of Primary School, Jobga was seized vide Ex.P/6. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC vide Ex.P/7. The appellant was arrested on 9.6.2020 and subjected to medical examination wherein he was found capable of performing sexual intercourse vide Ex.P/16. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the Act of 2012. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366A, 376(3) (2)(n), 313 of IPC and Sections 4(2) & 6 of the Act of 2012 against appellant, to which he abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

03. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

However, no witness was examined by him in defence.

04. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is perverse, erroneous and contrary to the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It ought to have seen that author of the entry made in the Dakhil-Kharij register as to the date of birth of the prosecutrix has not been examined by the prosecuti