2025:CGHC:60172-DB NAFR Digitally ANKIT s A K i N U gn M K e I A d T R by HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR KUMARSINGH SINGH Date:

2025.12.12 10:59:05 +0530 CRA No. 868 of 2016 [Arising out of judgment dated 17.03.2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.93/2015 by the Additional Special Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.]



Sujan Haldar S/o Niranjan Haldar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o P.V. 23, Police Station Pakhanjur, District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus 

The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :- Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer.

Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board (11.12.2025)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant herein, is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 17.03.2016 passed by the Additional Special Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh, in Special Sessions Trial No.93/2015, by which the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Prosecution story:-

2. The case projected by the prosecution and accepted by the Special Court is that one month prior to 13.08.2015, the appellant trespassed into the house of the minor victim (PW-2), and committed sexual intercourse against her wishes and thereby committed the offences in question. Against the said act of the appellant, FIR was registered by the minor victim on 14.08.2015 vide Ex.P/2. Nazari naksha and crime details form were prepared vide Exs.P/1 & P/3, respectively. Victim (PW-2) was subjected to medical examination by Dr. Sarita (PW-7), who prepared the victim’s medical report vide Ex.P/9. As per the victim’s medical report (Ex.P/9), hymen was found old and ruptured and though it has been opined that the sexual intercourse might be possible, but no external injuries were found over the body of the victim and also with regard to age determination suggestion has been given to go to the radiologist. As per the dakhil khariz register (Ex.P/8C), date of birth of the victim is 10.02.1999, meaning thereby, at the time of incident, the victim was aged about more than 16 years 6 moths. Slides of the victim were prepared. Undergarment of the victim was seized and semen slide of the appellant was also prepared. Other articles were also seized. Slides of the victim, semen slide of the appellant and undergarment of the victim were sent for chemical analysis to FSL. As the FSL report (Ex.P/15) on the slide of the victim (Article B1) & semen slide of the appellant (Article C) human sperm was found and on the slide of the appellant (Article C) stains of semen and human sperm were found.

3. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for Special in accordance with law. The appellant /

accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents, whereas, defence, in support of its case, has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. The learned Special Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and o