2026:CGHC:4343-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHANDRA Digitally signed by CRA No. 1591 of 2022 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Golu @ Nand Kumar Yadav S/o Khomkaran Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Murethi P.S. - Dharsiwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Dharsiwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

27.01.2026

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2021 passed in learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Special Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No.112/2019 by which the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo RI for 20 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 year.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that the though the appellant has also been convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’), but since punishment under Section 376AB of the IPC is greater in degree, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the appellant has been convicted only for offence under Section 376AB IPC.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim's mother filed a complaint with the Police Assistance Center, Sitalara, Dharsiwa, stating that on 29.05.2019, her husband had gone to work and her brother-in-law (devar) was admitted to Mekahara, and her two children, aged 6 and 4, were at home. On 30.05.2019, both children went to their home for nature’s call and at approximately 3:00 p.m., she sent her daughter, the victim, aged 6, to her home to call the two children. On 02.06.2019, the victim told her that urinating was painful. When asked what had happened, the victim stated that at approximately 3:00 p.m. on 30.05.2019, the accused, Golu, threatened to pay her, forcibly inserted his penis into her urethra, and then inserted his penis into her mouth. When the victim said that she would tell her uncle about the incident, the accused threatened to kill her uncle. On the basis of the above mentioned unnumbered rural complaint lodged by the victim's mother at the Police Help Centre, Sitalara, Police Station, Dharsiwa, regarding the incident committed by the accused with the victim, FIR No. 283/2019 under sections 376, 377 of the IPC and sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act was registered in Police Station, Dharsiwa and the case was taken up for investigation. On finding evidence of crime against the accused, he was arrested and after completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and the charge sheet was presented before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Special Court, Raipur (C.G.) on 06.08.2021.

4. On 05.09.2019, when the charges under Section 376AB of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were framed, read out and explained to the accused, he denied the charges and claimed trial. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution recorded statements of a total of 08 prosecution witnesses and marked a total of 23 documents as exhibits.

5. When the statement of the accused was taken under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he declared himself innocent and expressed his willingness to give evidence in his defence. On behalf of the accused, statements of Sant Kumar Yadav (DW-01), Fenkuram (DW-02), Hiralal Yadav (DW-03) and Ashok Yadav (DW-04) were recorded as defence evidence and thereafter, the accused concluded his defence evidence on 02.08.2021, in this regard his statement was recorded in the margin of the ord