D si i g g n it e a d l l b y y 2025:CGHC:58144 JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMADate:

2025.12.03 10:40:36 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 146 of 2016 Shivraj Potavi S/o Dasru Ram Potavi Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kandgadi, Mandanpara, P.S. Gyarahpatti, District Gadhchirouli Maharastra At Present R/o Village Medha, P.S. Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sitagaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodia, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board

01/12/2025

1. The present criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.12.2015 passed in S. T. No. 30/2014 by the Fast Track Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offece Act 2012, Rajnandgaon, Dist Rajnandgaon C.G. whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.

2,000/- with default stipulation.

U/s 370 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with default stipulation.

U/s 371 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.

2,000/- with default stipulation.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim No.1 (P.W-

4), a minor girl aged about 16 years, was residing with her parents in village Murjhar. About four months prior to 06.03.2014, she had gone along with her friend, victim No.2 (P.W-9), to village Halanjhur. From there, the accused Shivraj Potavi, a resident of village Kanagadi, allegedly took both the victims on the pretext of taking them to Delhi for sightseeing. He first took them to his house at village Medha, where they were kept for one night, and thereafter transported them by bus to Rajnandgaon and subsequently by train to Delhi. It is alleged that in Delhi he sold both the victims to Gayatri Enterprises for labour work. It is further alleged that after reaching Delhi, both the victims were separated. Victim No.1 was kept in a house where she was compelled to work as a domestic servant, was not permitted to go outside, and was subjected to exploitative conditions. During this period, Rahul Narang committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on two occasions. As a result of the trauma, the victim stopped eating and repeatedly requested to be sent home. Thereafter, one Maheshwari Madam brought her back to Manpur around three and a half months prior to lodging of the report, from where she returned to her native village and disclosed the entire incident to her parents and one Fulsingh Markam. It is also the allegation that the accused Shivraj Potavi had been involved in taking several minor girls to Delhi and selling them. Despite knowing that victim No.1 was a minor, he transported and sold her, thereby facilitating the commission of rape upon her by Rahul Narang. On 06.03.2014, the victim’s report was recorded at Manpur Police Station vide unnumbered FIR (P-14), which was subsequently forwarded to Sitagaon Police Station, where a numbered FIR (P- 14A) was registered and the investigation was carried out pursuant thereto.

3. During investigation, the statement of the witnesses were recorded. 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 appellants, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial.

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

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