2025:CGHC:59812 JYOTI SHARMA NAFR JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.12 10:44:25 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 849 of 2016 Vijendra Chandrakar S/o Shri Punit Chandrakar Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill Arand, P.S. Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Ms. Anamika Jain on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. R.C.S. Deo, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board

09/12/2025

1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2015 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 13/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Dhamtari, District Dhamtari C.G. whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant's mother lodged a report at Kurud Police Station on March 7, 2015, against the accused for abducting the victim by luring her with a promise of marriage and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her Based on this report, Kurud Police Station registered Crime No.

72/15, and further investigation was conducted.

3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Statement of the Victim and the Statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court.

4. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial.

5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined

8 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 13.08.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant is perverse and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, as well as Section 4 of the POCSO Act, yet the learned trial Court has erroneously presumed guilt and recorded conviction by stretching its imagination beyond permissible limits. Counsel submits that the evidence brought on record has not been properly appreciated; in fact, the prosecutrix herself did not support the prosecution case. It is urged that the prosecutrix had voluntarily contacted the appellant, who merely advised her, took her to his parents, and thereafter produced her before the police. There was no allegation or evidence of force, compulsion, or deceitful inducement on the part of the appellant, and therefore no act amounting to abduction. The conviction is based purely on presumptions, particularly when the statement of the prosecutrix demonstrates her consent. It is further submitted that the sentence imposed is excessively harsh and wholly disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. There is clear evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost