2025:CGHC:59767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 616 of 2016 Sharit Kumar Paikara S/o Sant Ram Paikara Aged About 20 Years R/o AMARDEEP Village Tarashiv, P.S. City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar -

CHOUBEY Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.12.17 ... Appellant

15:39:06 +0530 versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station - City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh Respondent (Cause title taken from the Case Information System For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate with Ms.

Gunja Taram, Advocate.

For Respondent : Ms. Supriya Upasane, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board

09/12/2025

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30/04/2016 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No.54/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently

2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant/victim-PW-2 lodged a report at P.S.Kotwali, Balodabazar that on 16/09/2015 at about 10:00 p.m., the appellant entered the house of victim and tried to outrage her modesty. It is also alleged that the appellant committed the same incident 4-5 times prior to the incident dated 16/09/2015. Based on the above report, FIR was registered against the appellant vide Ex.P-2. During the investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Statement of victim was recorded under Section 164. Appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-10. With regard to ascertain the age of the victim, Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-9/C) and Kotwar book vide Ex.P-7/C were seized. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared.

3. In order to bring home the above-stated offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence

produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted

the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in opening

paragraph of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the actual age of the victim, as the age of victim mentioned in the Dakhil-Kharij register and in Kotwar book is different. Learned counsel further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions between the statement under Section 164 and Court Statement. He submits that the incident occurred on 16/09/2015 and the FIR lodged on 19/09/2015 and as such the same suffers from delay and laches. The entire incident is highly doubtful, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable and he may be acquitted of the charges framed against him.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the statement of the victim and other witnesses are fully reliable. There are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellant is guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant which does not require for any interference.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

8. The first question arose for the consideration would be whether the victim was minor and less than 18 years of age on the date of incident or not.

9. PW-2, victim stated that she is studied till 8^th standard, but she does not know her exact date of birth. PW-3, father of victim and PW-1, mother of victim stated that the victim has studied till 8^th standard, however, they d