2024:CGHC:36845 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 650 of 2011 Manmohit Satnami S/o Tijlal Satnami, R/o Village Chorha, Navagaon, P.S.-Simga, Distt.-Raipur, C.G.

...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Simga, District Raipur CG ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judgment on Board

18/09/2024 This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.06.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 14/2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara District Raipur (CG) whereby, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence as mentioned hereunder :

2. The prosecution case in brief is that father of the prosecutrix (PW-

3) has lodged a written report alleging that he was a resident of village Chorha Nawagaon and on the date of incident, he was going to Bhatapara along with his wife and two daughters for the treatment of his wife. On the way, the accused/appellant and co-accused were in their TVS Moped (two wheeler) and while crossing the road, they caught the hand of his daughter/prosecutrix and took her along with them. The incident was narrated by his daughter to her father/complainant and after 4-5 days of the incident, the complainant went to the house of accused and narrated the incident. The father of the accused asked him to take Rs. 5,000/- from him and arrange the marriage of his daughter in the village separately but when the prosecutrix did not return after one month, the complainant made a written complaint to Station House In charge Simga.

3. On the basis of the written report, FIR Ex.P-5 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Sections 363 and 366(A) IPC. The mark sheet of the prosecutrix was seized vide Ex.P-2 and the statements of the father, mother and sister was recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. The appellant abjured his guilt and in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there was love affair between the appellant and the prosecutrix since three-four years. The appellant has examined the prosecutrix (DW-1) in his defence.

5. After completion of trial, the appellant vide the impugned judgment, has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence and no offence is made out against the appellant as alleged. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no legally admissible evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix stating that on the date of incident she was minor. In absence of examination of the author of the school admission and discharge register, the same cannot be taken into consideration for determination of the age of the prosecutrix. There is no Kotwari register or ossification report produced by the prosecution to determine the actual age of the prosecutrix that on the date of incident she was minor. The prosecutrix has also not been examined. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix herself went along with the appellant of her own will and no alarm was raised by her. He further submits that the prosecutrix was a fully grown up girl and was a consenting party. The statements of the parents of the prosecutrix are not conclusive. the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, therefore,