2025:CGHC:55859 The date when The date when The date when the the judgment the judgment judgment is uploaded on is reserved is pronounced the website Operative Full

11.08.2025 17.11.2025 -- 17.11.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 172 of 2007 Judgment Reserved on : 11.08.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 17.11.2025  Rajkumar Sharma, S/o Arjun Sharma, aged about 19 years, Caste – Carpenter, R/o Dehri Vishrampur, Police Station – Husainabad, District – Palamu (Jharkhand), at present Imalibhatha, Bandhawapara, House of Dudheshwar Sharma, Police Station House – Sarkanda, District –

Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Appellant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through : S.H.O., Police Station –

Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Respondent For Appellant. - Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent - Mr. Afroj Khan, P.L.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (C.A.V. Judgment)

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Special Judge (constituted under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.245/2005 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively, with default stipulations. All the sentences were directed to run consequently.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.03.2005, father of the prosecutrix (PW-06) lodged a report to the effect that his minor daughter (PW-04) was not in the house since 21.03.2005 and even after extensive search she could not be found. Thereafter, the police of Police Station - Sarkanda lodged a missing report No. 18/2005 on the basis of Sanha report (Ex.P-09) and after some investigation, an FIR (Ex.P-10) was lodged against the accused/appellant. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused/appellant after alluring the prosecutrix (PW-4) abducted her from lawful guardianship. It was also revealed that the accused/appellant committed forceful sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage. After recovery of the prosecutrix (PW-4), she was sent for medical examination to CIMS, Bilaspur where Dr. Nilima Sharma (PW-02) conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix and gave her report (Ex.P-2) opining that secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed and she was habitual for intercourse and no any injury was seen over her body. The accused/appellant was also medically examined vide Ex.P-1 by Dr. S.K. Mishra (PW-1) who found the accused/appellant to be capable of performing sexual intercourse. The dakhil kharij register (Ex.P-3), school admission letter (Ex.P-4) were obtained and mark list (Ex.P- 7) of prosecutrix was seized vide Ex.P-6 & according to the aforesaid documents obtained from the school, the prosecutrix (PW-4) was found below the age of 16 years. The spot map was prepared by Patwari, articles were seized, present appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P-14), statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the entire investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and accordingly the learned trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the age of the prosecut