2026:CGHC:18516 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 176 of 2007 Santu alias Satendra S/o Ganeshram Suryawanshi, aged about 20 years, Student, R/o Village Kosir, PS Pamgardh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG)

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Pamgardh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG)

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. DC Verma and Mr. Devashish Dara, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board (23^rd April, 2026)

The appellant in this appeal calls in question the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.12.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa in ST No.46/2006 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.6.2006 the prosecutrix, a minor girl of about 15 years, along with her mother and sister had gone for labour work. However, in the evening she was sent back to home by her mother and sister for preparing food. While the prosecutrix was returning home, the accused/appellant met her near a pond and forcibly took her to Nariyara where he kept her in the house of his friend for 3-4 days and thereafter took her to Khapridand. The accused/appellant promised her of marrying her. However, on her refusal, he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On the missing report being lodged by her father on 4.7.2006, the police searched for the prosecutrix and she was recovered from the house of Khursaliram at Village Khapridand. She was got medically examined and her vaginal slides were prepared and seized. During investigation, spot maps were prepared, clothes of the prosecutrix were seized; her mark sheet as also admission-discharge register of the school were seized. The prosecutrix was also subjected to x-ray examination for ascertaining her age. The accused/appellant was taken into custody and his medical examination was also done. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC was filed against the accused/appellant.

03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of IPC, which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 10 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 Smt. Shakuntala as DW-1.

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 in para 1 of this judgment.

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. Learned trial Court erred in relying upon the testimony of father of the prosecutrix which suffers from the vice of contradiction and omission as also improvement. Likewise, the testimony of the prosecutrix is also not reliable as there are material omission and contradiction in it especially on the point of age. Learned trial Court committed illegality in holding her minor by mis- appreciating Ex.P/22C i.e. admission-discharge