2025:CGHC:41968-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 16-06-2025 Judgment delivered on : 20-08-2025 CRA No. 369 of 2019 Rajesh Chakradhari, S/o Shankar Lal Chakradhari, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Bhatgaon, Post Office & Police Station – Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (CG)

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt.

Raipur (CG)

... Respondent CRA No. 739 of 2019 Mithlesh Kumar S/o Shri Siyaram Tarak, aged about 50 years, R/o Village-Ulba, PS Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur, Civil and Revenue Distt.

Raipur (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station – Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (CG)

... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Mr. Anshu Ratre and Mr.

Manoj Ku. Sinha, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ

CAV Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey, J Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.2.2019 passed by the 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Distt. Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.215/2017, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, the appellants stand convicted under Sections 363/34, 366/34, 342/34, 376D of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “the Act of 2012”) and keeping in view the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 2012, sentenced as under:

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.5.2017 the prosecutrix was going to the house of her Bua (father’s sister) at Ulba by bus. When she reached at the turning of Ulba at around 3 o’clock, the accused/appellants came from Ulba on a red coloured motorcycle and enquired from her about her arrival. They told her that they knew the house of her Bua and would drop her there. Thereupon she sat on their motorcycle. However, the accused/appellants instead of taking her to her destination, rode her around towards Ulba and Rakhi. At about 7 o’clock they took her into a room of a Khaprail house (a clay- tiled house) situated at Ulba Brick-kiln, closed the room from inside, tied her hands and legs with scarf and on the threat of being killed if she screamed or tried to escape, committed rape upon her turn by turn and fled from there after about three hours. She somehow untied her and informed about the incident to her Bua, Jeeja (husband of sister) and her sister. She also informed them about the physical characteristics of the accused and the vehicle number 8137. On 27.5.2017 in the village meeting she identified both the accused/appellants. On her report, offence under Sections 363, 366, 342, 506, 376D of IPC and Sections 5 & 6 of the Act of 2012 was registered and after completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against them.

03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 506 Part-II, 342 of IPC and Section 6 of the Act of 2012 against the accused persons, which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by them in defence.

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 appellants as mentioned above. Hence these appeals.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant Rajesh Chakradhari in CRA No.369/19 would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Evidence of the prosecutrix and her relatives are not corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. There is no evidence