2025:CGHC:58700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by AMARDEEP AMARDEEP CHOUBEY 1 - Mangatu Ram S/o Kartik Ram Kurre Aged About 22 Years R/o CHOUBEY Date:

2025.12.05

10:59:50 +0530 Village Datann Police Chowki Lavan, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar-

Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

2 - Ishwar Singh S/o Rameshwar Mahilang Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Datann Police Chowki Lavan, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar-

Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station, Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

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

03/12/2025

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 24.06.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 74/2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G., whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Appellant No.1 Conviction Sentence U/s 376 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.

U/s 363 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

U/s 366 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Appellant No.2 Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

U/s 366 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.09.2010, complainant-Mongra Bai, mother of victim PW-1 lodged a report at P.S. that on 31.08.2010 at 07:00 pm, her daughter/victim/PW-4 had gone for nature’s call and had not returned home. After searching around, she was not found. On that basis, a missing complainant was recorded and during investigation, it was found that the victim was lured by the accused Mangtu Ram (A-1) and she was taken by A-1 with the help of Ishwar Singh (A-2). It is alleged that A-2 dropped A-1 and victim at the Main Road Railway Station, Bhatapara on his Hero Honda motorcycle. From there, the victim was taken by A-1 to Bhatapara, then reached Gudgaon. O the pretext of marriage, A-1 committed sexual intercourse with her. After recovery of victim, a recovery panchnama (Exhibit P-8) was prepared. Spot map was prepared. Statement of victim was recorded. 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.

3. 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.

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

15 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.

5. 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.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellants is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material c