2025:CGHC:59558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by AMARDEEP AMARDEEPCHOUBEY CHOUBEY Date: CRA No. 90 of 2016

2025.12.11

10:34:00 +0530 Premshankar Yadav S/o Sammesingh Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Aurda, P.S. Pussore, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, Distt.

Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 94 of 2016 Rishikesh Sao @ Babalu S/o Shri Shivcharan Sao Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Gad Umariya, P.S. Chauki Jute Mill, Kotwali Raigarh, Distt.

Raigarh, Civil And Rev. Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pusaur, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 136 of 2016 Pyarelal Sao S/o Nathuram Sao Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Aurada, P.S. Pusaur, District Raigarh, Civil And Rev. Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pusaur, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

For Respective : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha and Ms. Indira Appellants Tripathi, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board

08/12/2025

1. Since all the appeals arising out of same sessions trial, therefore, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

2. These criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.01.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 05/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G., whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

For Appellant-Premshankar Yadav in (CRA No.90/2016)

For Appellant Pyarelal Sao (CRA No.136/2016) and Rishikesh Sao in (CRA No.94/2016)

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.11.2013 the complainant-Manbodh PW-1, father of victim has lodged a report at Police Station Pussore that on 27.11.2013, he and his wife had gone to the fields to cut the crop, leaving their daughter/the prosecutrix/PW-2 at home. When they returned, they found that the prosecutrix was not present at the house. They assumed that she might have gone to meet her friend. When she did not return even by late night, they searched for her among their family members and neighbours, but she could not be found. On 30.11.2013, the prosecutrix informed them through mobile that she was in Bilaspur. On hearing his daughter’s voice, the complainant told her that he was coming to bring her back, but she told him not to come there. The complainant went to Bilaspur and searched for her, but she could not be traced. On the basis of which, police started searching the victim and during the investigation, on 05.12.2014, the prosecutrix recovered from Gad Umariya. Appellants were arrested. Medical examination of the victim was conducted. With regard to ascertain the age of the victim, Dakhil Kharij Register was seized. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared.

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

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

13 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter.

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

Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel would submit that the conviction against the appella