Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL

2025:CGHC:60956 The date when The date when the The date when the the judgment is judgment is judgment is uploaded on reserved pronounced the website Operative Full

15.12.2025 - 15.12.2025 16.12.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1065 of 2007

1. Vijay Yadav S/o Shri Vishun Dayal, aged about 40 years, R/o Village-

Mainpath, P.S. Kamleshwar, District- Surguja (C.G.)

2. Shiv Narayan, S/o Jethu, aged about 65 years, R/o Village- Latori, P.S.- Jain Nagar, District- Surguja (C.G.) (As per Hon’ble Court order dated

24.07.2015, he served whole jail sentence.)

...Appellants Vs.

• State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Jai Nagar, District-

Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________

For Appellant No. 1: Ms Prachi Singh, Advocate through Legal Aid.

For State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL ____________________________________________________________

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 31.08.2005 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur, District-

Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 340/2004, wherein the said Court convicted the accused and sentenced them as under :-

(Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently)

2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case that the prosecutrix lives in village Gangapur and is a student of class 9^th in Government High School Latori. On the date of incident i.e., 16.01.04, in the morning, she came to Latori school to study. During break time, at the instance of Sudo alias Om Prakash, she went with him from school. Sudo alias Om Prakash took her to the house of his maternal uncle Shivnarayan Badi, where Shivnarayan had locked the prosecutrix in the house and did not let her go home despite her several pleadings. Vijay Yadav and Jagdish Yadav from Mainpat were also staying at Shivnarayan's house. The other accused persons and prosecutrix had food and drink. When the prosecutrix went to the place where she was kept locked to create a ruckus, the accused threatened to kill her and asked her to eat but she did not eat. Then, the accused Om Prakash came to the prosecutrix’s room at night and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and slept in the same room. In the morning, Shivnarayan asked the prosecutrix to go with them to Mainpat, then all four conspired and took her to Mainpat and Shivnarayan stayed at Latori. The prosecutrix was kept in a hotel in Mainpat and was made to work by Om Prakash. In the hotel, Om Prakash used to cook food, Vijay used to prepare breakfast and Jagdish used to give milk. Then, Om Prakash went back to Latori after meeting Vijay and Jagdish. All four of them abducted her by conspiracy and Om Prakash had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. Later, the prosecutrix came to know that the accused Om Prakash did not belong to brahmin caste, but belongs to the Tribal Caste. During the investigation, medical examination was conducted of the prosecutrix and obtained the report of the radiologist for determining her age. Underwear and saree of the prosecutrix were seized, spot map was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for alleged commission of offence under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 120-B of IPC. The appellants/accused having abjured guilt were subjected to trial.

3. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses to prove its case against the appellants. Statement of the accused/