Digitally signed by AKHILESH AKHILESH BEOHAR BEOHAR D 20a 2te 4: .11.20

17:17:09 +0530

2024:CGHC:44743-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1041 of 2019 • Chhagan Lal Sahu, S/o Shri Firanta Sahu, aged about 47 Years, R/o Lodhipara, Mohan Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

...Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.

Judgment on Board (18.11.2024)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section

374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.119/2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Durg, C.G. by which the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence Under Section 366 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and fine of Section 34 of Indian Penal Rs.500/-, in default of Code (for short 'IPC') payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months Under Section 376(?k) of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for twenty years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months (Both sentences were directed to run concurrently)

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.04.2018, present appellant and the absconded co-accused namely Deepak Kumar Mahar, abducted the victim (PW-4), who is a deaf and dumb lady, aged about 25 years and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Further case of the prosecution is that on 22.04.2018, victim (PW-4) went missing from the company of her husband- PW-5 Rajendra Yadav, pursuant to which, PW-5 Rajendra Yadav lodged a missing report which was registered vide Ex.P-6 and as per the prosecution case, the victim was recovered on 02.05.2018. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police by PW-5 Rajendra Yadav, consequent to which, FIR (Ex.P- 7A) was registered against the appellant and the absconded co- accused Deepak Kumar Mahar. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-1. Consent letters (Exs.P-10 & 11) of victim and her husband (PW-5 Rajendra Yadav) were obtained and victim was sent for medical examination on 09.08.2018 where Dr. Vinita Dhruve (PW-8) examined the victim and did not notice any internal or external injury over the person of the victim and gave her MLC report vide Ex.P-5. FSL report vide Ex.P-19 was also obtained where seized slide of victim was reported to be negative.

3. After due investigation, appellant and absconded co-accused were charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, however, the present appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the aforesaid offences.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and brought on record 19 documents. The defence has examined none and exhibited only one document i.e.

Ex.D-1.

5. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He further submits that though the victim is a deaf and dumb lady, but her statement has not been recorded complying Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Evidence Act'). He also submits that although the victim was recovered on 02.05.2018 and was ha