2025:CGHC:49106-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1870 of 2019 Judgment reserved on : 22.07.2025 Judgment delivered on : 25.09.2025

1 - Budhram Singh @ Lallu S/o Ramdas Gond Aged About 23 Years R/o Sundarpur (Patrapara), Police Station Sonhat, District Koriya, Digitally signed Chhattisgarh by R NIRALA Appellant (s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sonhat, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s) : Ms. Reena Singh, through Legal Aid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh Kela, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

C A V Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (FTC) and Special Judge under the POCSO Act, 2012, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.)

in Special Session Trial No.25/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 4 of POCSO Act and Sections 366 and 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, respectively, with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the mother of the deceased lodged a written report at the police station concerned alleging that the deceased i.e. her minor daughter was enticed away by the appellant on the pretext of marriage and deceased was kept by appellant in his house at night and he committed rape upon her and in order to flee away from marriage deceased was given poison by mixing it with tea and parents of appellant namely Ramdas (father) and Shyamjeera (mother) knowingly caused the deceased to stay at their house and committed the offence in furtherance of common intention with the appellant. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused persons and they were arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court acquitted the parents of the appellant and convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove any motive behind the commission of crime. On the other hand main witness like P.W. 1, P.W.3, P. W.5 and P.W.6 have accepted the fact that there was love relation between the deceased and appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients for commission of offence under Sections 366 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Only the general and omnibus allegations have been made against the present appellant. The impugned judgment of the court below is based on the surmises and conjectures. The learned trial Court committed error by ignoring the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution story. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab, passed in CRA No.163/2010, decided on 04.01.2024 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Niraj Jangde @ Nirja vs State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRA No.1615/2022, decided on 07.02.2024

4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Cou