2026:CGHC:4040-DB ASHOK NAFR SAHU Digitally signed by HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ASHOK SAHU Date:

2026.01.23

17:23:17 +0530 CRA No. 1290 of 2019 {Arising out of judgment dated 29.07.2019 passed in Special Criminal Case No.129/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Durg}

Dinesh Nirmalkar, S/o. Bisesar Nirmalkar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o. Village Tekari, Thana Vidhansabha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Bori, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. Govt. Advocate (Division Bench)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board (23.01.2026)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section

374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Durg in Special Criminal Case No.129/2015, by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under :

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that, on 30.06.2015 at

11:00 A.M. from village Arsi, Police Station Bori, District Durg, the appellant herein abducted the minor victim (PW-3) from the lawful guardianship of her parents and committed sexual intercourse against her wishes and thereby the aforesaid offences have been committed. The FIR was lodged by the father of the victim on 02.07.2015 vide Ex.P-15 and offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. was registered and the wheels of investigation started running. Thereafter, the victim (PW-3) was recovered on 11.07.2015 and she was medically examined by Dr. Veenita Dhruwe (PW-9) vide Ex.P-19, but no external or internal injury was found and no definite opinion about recent sexual intercourse was given. The vaginal slides of the victim were prepared and sent for chemical examination to FSL and as per the FSL report, semen & human sperm was found on the seized articles. The age of the victim was found to be less than 18 years as per the Dakhil Khariz Register (Ex.P-21C) proved by Kamleshwar Singh Ganwal (PW-8). After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offences, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness but has exhibited the document Ex.D-1.

4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Mr. Deepak Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that Kamleshwar Singh Ganwal (PW-8) was not the author of Dakhil Khariz Register, therefore, the age of victim to be less than 18 years on the date of offence has not been proved. He would further submit that the victim was major and consenting party on the date of offence and the medical & forensic evidence would not support the case of the prosecution; therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences; therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost ci