2025:CGHC:57705-DB Digitally s JY ig O n T e I d by NAFR JYOTI SHARMA SHARMADate:

2025.11.28

10:17:35 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2257 of 2024 Jitendra Say Paikra S/o Mahaveer Say Aged About 19 Years R/o Purainbandha, Police Station- Tapkara, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station- Tapkara, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocates.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

27.11.2025 By order dated 05.03.2025, this Court directed the State counsel to inform the father of victim (PW2) regarding pendency of the appeal revealing that he can appear on the date fixed and object the prayer made by the appellant.

Today, learned State counsel would submit that since the father of the victim expired, the intimation regarding pendency of the appeal has been given to the victim Despite the above, no representation is made on behalf of the victim to object the prayer.

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 04.09.2024 passed in Special Session Trial (POCSO) No. 15/2021, by the learned Special Session Judge, (POCSO), Kunkuri, District Jashpur, 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 on 18.06.2021, the victim's father P.W.-02 lodged an oral report at Tapkara police station regarding the accused luring his minor daughter and taking her to Jaipur and leaving her back home after a month and physically exploiting the victim by deceiving her with the promise of marriage. On this, Tapkara police station registered a First Information Report (Exhibit P-05) against the accused under Crime No. 55/2021 Section 363 366 376 IPC and Section 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and took the case into investigation.

3. Thereafter, victim and the Statements of witnesses were recorded, victim got medically examined, 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

14 witnesses in its support and exhibited 27 documents and Mark- sheet as Article-A. 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 04.09.2024 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 is unsustainable as it suffers from serious errors in appreciation of evidence. It is urged that the trial Court failed to properly consider the documentary evidence and material available on record and overlooked major contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He further contends that the testimony of PW-1, the victim, clearly reflects that she had a love affair with the appellant, which the trial Court failed to appreciate. It is further submitted that the age of the victim is doubtful, as the school record mentions her date of birth as 10.12.2004 without any primary proof, and neither the mother of the victim nor the doctor could confirm her correct age; hence the allegation that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with a minor becomes doubtful. Counsel also points out that PW