2026:CGHC:4807 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 625 of 2016

1 - Pardeshi Das Mahant S/o Itwaridas Mahant Aged About 29 Years R/o Purani Basti, Neem Chowk, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Shri J.K.Saxena, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Rishi Raj Pithava, Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judgment on Board

28/01/2026 This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant calling in question the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 14.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Korba in Sessions Trial No. 34/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment along with fine, while he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 376(1) IPC. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant has approached this Court.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.12.2005, mother of the prosecutrix lodged a missing report at Police Station Kotwali, Korba stating that her daughter had gone missing. On the basis of the said information, missing report No. 69/2005 was registered and search proceedings were undertaken. She could not be traced for several years. It is the prosecution case that during investigation conducted subsequently, on 21.06.2013 the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the present appellant. Her statement was recorded during investigation wherein she allegedly stated that the appellant had taken her away by alluring her and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her. On the basis of her statement, Crime No. 346/2013 was registered against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) and 376 IPC was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) and 376(1) IPC. The appellant denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.

3. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced documentary evidence including recovery memos, investigation papers and school records relating to the age of the prosecutrix.

4. After appreciation of evidence, the trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376 IPC but convicted him under Sections 363 and 366(A) IPC and imposed sentence accordingly.

Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the entire prosecution case collapses in view of the admission of the prosecutrix herself that she voluntarily accompanied the appellant and thereafter married him. It is further submitted that the appellant and prosecutrix are presently residing together happily as husband and wife and two children have been born out of their wedlock, which clearly demonstrates the consensual nature of their relationship. It is argued that there is complete absence of evidence to show that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken or enticed away. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish her minority by legally admissible evidence as neither birth certificate nor medical examination was produced. He therefore submits that when the trial Court itself found evidence insufficient to convict under Section 376 IPC, conviction under Sections 363 and 366(A) IPC on the same evidence is unsustainable. He submits that from the testimony of the prosecutrix, it clearly emerges that she had accompanied the appellant voluntarily and thereafter entered into a marital relationship with him. She has categorically deposed that both of them went to Bilaspur where they resided together, performed marriage in a temp