2025:CGHC:43613 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 30-06-2025 Judgment delivered on : 28-08-2025 CRA No. 696 of 2006 Dhelu Ram, aged about 30 years, S/o Dhondu Ram Sahu, resident of Village Khubatola, Thana Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG)

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (CG)

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

CAV Judgment

The appellant in this appeal calls in question the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.6.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in ST No.73/2005 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Under Section 450 of Indian Penal RI for seven years, pay a fine of Code. Rs.100/- and in default thereof to suffer additional SI for 10 days.

Under Section 376 of Indian Penal RI for seven years, pay a fine of Code. Rs.100/- and in default thereof to suffer additional SI for 10 days.

Under Section 506(1) of Indian RI for one month.

Penal Code.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that about five months prior to 16.5.2005 when the prosecutrix, a minor girl, was all alone at her house and was changing her clothes, the accused/appellant came to her house and enquired about her father. She told him that her father is not at the house but he forcibly entered the house and committed rape on her on the threat of life. Three days thereafter he again came to her house and committed rape on her as a result of which she got pregnant. When she informed about her pregnancy to the accused, he told her of getting it aborted and warned her of not disclosing it to anyone. However, when mother of the prosecutrix returned to the house from her parental house, looking to the condition of the prosecutrix she took her to the doctor for treatment where the doctor after examination told her about five months pregnancy of the prosecutrix. Then the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to her mother who, in turn, informed the same to her husband and thereafter a village meeting was convened. FIR (Ex.P/8) was lodged by the prosecutrix with the police. The prosecutrix and the accused were got medically examined; spot map was prepared, marksheet, Dakhil-Kharij register and medical documents of the prosecutrix regarding treatment of her pregnancy were seized and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing investigation, charge sheet under Sections

376 and 506 of IPC was filed against the accused.

03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 450, 376 and 506(1) of IPC against the accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence, he examined one witness.

04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above.

Hence this appeal.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Except Dakhil-Kharij register of the school and evidence of PW-10 father of the prosecutrix, there is no other evidence to conclusively prove the age of the prosecutrix. There is no radiologist report produced by the prosecution. In cross-examination, PW-10 has failed to explain as to on what basis he stated the date of birth of his daughter/prosecutrix as 5.3.1990. As per the evidence of PW-12 mother of the prosecutrix, it can safely be inferred that the prosecutr