2026:CGHC:4658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 22 of 2011

1 - Rajkumar Yadav, S/o Sukhram Yadav, Aged about 22 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Rouni Datalgawa, Police Station Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha District Jashpur (C.G.).

... Appellant versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Police Station Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.).

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L.

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board

28/01/2026

1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)

in Sessions Trial No. 13/2010, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:-

Conviction Sentence U/s 376 (1) of R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.100/- and IPC in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in October 2007, on the date of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix had gone to the Datlagwa forest for collecting firewood. It is alleged that the accused approached her for committing sexual intercourse with her. When the prosecutrix attempted to flee out of fear, the accused chased her, caught hold of her and despite her raising alarm, no one came to her rescue as the place was secluded. It is further alleged that the accused forcibly threw her to the ground and committed sexual intercourse against her will. Thereafter, when the prosecutrix started crying and stated that she would disclose the incident to her family members, the accused allegedly assured her that he would marry her. The said assurance, according to the prosecution, was false and fraudulent, as the accused subsequently refused to marry her. On 05.10.2009, a report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Bagicha, pursuant to which a crime was registered and investigation was carried out. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court against the appellant. Thereafter, learned trial Court framed the charge under Section 376 (1) of IPC against the appellant, to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded innocence, alleging false implication in the case. The accused/appellant, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

4. Upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court, by judgment dated 14.12.2010, held the prosecution evidence to be reliable and trustworthy and consequently convicted the accused/appellant under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him as indicated in para 1 of the judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is unsustainable in law and on facts. The learned Trial Court has misappreciated the evidence on record and improperly relied upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, despite material contradictions and omissions which go to the root of the case and fail to establish the guilt of the appellant. The findings recorded are not based on reliable, cogent, or legally admissible evidence and are contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The learned Trial Court failed to consider the material medical evidence of P.W.-5, Dr. Smt. V. Bakhla, as well as the inordinate and unexplained delay of about two years and two months in lodging the FIR, which seriously affects the credibility of the prosecution case. It