2025:CGHC:14334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 322 of 2025  Manbodh Deepak S/o Goutam Deepak Aged About 21 Years R/o Khairgadhi, P.S. Sariya, District Sarangarh -Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sariya, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh..

---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate with Mr.

Chandrasen Chouhan, Advocate.

For Respondent-State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

25.03.2025

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2025,

passed by learned Session Judge, District -Sarangarh Bilaigarh,

(CG) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.12/2019,

whereby appellant stands convicted and sentence as under :-

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that complainant (father of prosecutrix/victim) lodged missing report to the concerned Police Station mentioning therein that her daughter went out from the house without intimating anything to her family members and did not return back. Based upon report, initially the Police registered FIR for offence under Section 363 of IPC against unknown person. During course of investigation, prosecutrix was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, based upon which, offence under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376, 34 of IPC & Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested.

3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed

against the appellant and based upon which, trial Court framed

the charges against the appellant.

4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 17

witnesses. Statement of appellant (accused) was also recorded

under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record as the prosecutrix (PW-1) has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. As per case of prosecution, age of the prosecutrix was about 16-17 years at the time of alleged incident, but no authentic documentary proof was filed in order to show that the prosecutrix was a minor girl on the alleged date. The date of birth of prosecutrix mentioned as 20.06.2002 in Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-35) cannot be said to be conclusive as the author of the said document could not be examined. Prosecution did not produce any specific document regarding date of birth of prosecutrix and also failed to explain that on what basis entry made in Dakhil Kharij Panji. Further, no ossification test of the prosecutrix has been conducted to ascertain her age.

Learned counsel further submits that there are many contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which was not considered properly by the trial Court. From the statement of prosecutrix, it reflects that there was affair between the appellant and prosecutrix and, therefore, she willingly went with him, visited many places and stayed together. Trial Court ignored the fact that nothing has been found in the medical report of prosecutrix/victim though there is allegation of rape. Medical evidence also shows that there was no sign of forcible sexual intercourse on the body of the prosecutrix. As such, the im