2026:CGHC:2336 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 499 of 2016

1 - Rajesh Kumar Ratre S/o Salikram Ratre Aged About 20 Years R/o Dihipara Nagri, Police Station Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Smt.Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judgment on Board

14/01/2026 This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellant questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtari in Special Case No. 09/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulation.

2. The appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, but convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.11.2015, the complainant - father of the prosecutrix, lodged a written report at Police Station Nagri, District Dhamtari alleging that on 14.11.2015 at about 6–7 a.m., his daughter aged about 17 years, had left the house without informing anyone and had not returned thereafter. He expressed suspicion that someone might have enticed and taken her away. On the basis of the said report, FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC against an unknown person. During investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from the company of the present appellant Rajesh Ratre from the house of one Lamban Bharti situated at village Khursun, Police Station Arjunda, District Balod.The statements of the prosecutrix and witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The prosecutrix was medically examined. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC was also recorded. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.The learned trial Court framed charges accordingly.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. No defence evidence was led. Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC has also been recorded where he has simply taken a plea of innocence and false implication in the case.

5. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as per the description given hereinbefore vide judgment dated 06.04.2016 which is under assail in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), contending that the findings recorded by the trial Court suffer from serious legal and factual infirmities and are unsustainable in law.

7. At the outset, it is submitted that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix herself, whose deposition does not support the prosecution case of forcible sexual assault or coercion. It is argued that the prosecutrix did not allege force or compulsion at any stage and, on the contrary, admitted that she accompanied the appellant voluntarily and stayed with him for several days. Learned counsel submits that the prosecutrix was declared hostile as she did not support the prosecution version regarding abduction or forceful sexual assault. Even during cross-examination, she did not attribute any threat or compulsion to the appellant. In such circumstances, it is contended that the very substratum of t