Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM SINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date:

2025.12.16

17:07:59 +0530

2025:CGHC:61012-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 444 of 2015

1 - Bharat Lal Rathiya, S/o Phool Singh Rathiya, aged about 30 years, R/o Village- Hati, Police Station- Chhal, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

2 - Narayan @ Ramnarayan, S/o Kartik Ram Rathiya, aged about 28 years, R/o Village- Hati, Police Station- Chhal, District-

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

3 - Netram Manjhwar, S/o Phool Singh Manjhwar, aged about 30 years, R/o Village- Hati, Police Station- Chhal, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

4 - Tarachand Rathiya, S/o Gosairam Rathiya, aged about 30 years, R/o Village- Hati, Police Station- Chhal, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Chhal, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawa l Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswa l Judgment on Board (15.12.2025)

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

1. (I) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., the appellants herein have preferred this appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Raigarh (C.G.), in Session Trial No.100/2012, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

(II) The Trial Court has acquitted the appellants of offence punishable under Sections 363, 354 & 376/511 of IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (PW-

1) went to a fair in the village on the night of 6.10.2011 with her friend (PW-2), aunt, and maternal aunt. On the morning of 07.10.2011, at around 4:30 AM, when she needed to relieve herself and was standing with her friend (PW-2), the accused, along with another person, suddenly approached her, grabbed her hand, and, with the intention of molesting her, covered her mouth and tried to drag her away. Her friend (PW-2) then brought Ramdhan and Shatrughan, who were relatives from Khadgaon, to intervene. The accused, fearing consequences, fled, otherwise they would have committed a more serious offence. The prosecutrix (PW-1) returned home and narrated the incident to her grandmother. Subsequently, on 11.10.2011, she filed a written complaint (Exhibit P-1) at the police station, based on which First Information Report (Exhibit P-8) was registered at Chhal Police Station under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, the prosecutrix filed a second written complaint (Exhibit P-2) on 12.10.2011, alleging that she was raped during the incident, and again filed another written complaint (Exhibit P-3) on 18.10.2011, at the police station. The police prepared a site plan of the incident. The prosecutrix was medically examined. Her clothes were seized and sent for examination. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the complete investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. Statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied circumstances appearing against them in prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, on behalf of the accused/appellants, N.R. Ratre (DW-1) was examined in their defence. He stated that police duty had been assigned to the Hati village fair area, but no complaint regarding any incident had been received.

4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which has been challenged in this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that written complaint was filed with a de