##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:13643 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1829 of 2017

1 - Chandrashekhar S/o Lal Singh Sika, Aged About 22 Years R/o Kosmarra, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund

Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

2 - Devnarayan Thakur S/o Dashrath Thakur Aged About 19 Years R/o Matguda, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund

Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Chowki Lodam, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Judgment on Board

23/03/2026

1. The appellants have filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.')

2

questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.11.2017 passed in Special Criminal Case H-34/2016

whereby the appellants stand convicted as under :-

Appellant No. 1- Chandrashekhar

Appellant No. 2- Devnarayan

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Dubelal

Sahu lodged a written report at Police Station Komakhan stating that on the night of 15.05.2016, all family members were asleep. In the morning at about 5:00 AM, when he went to wake up his daughter (the prosecutrix) in her room, she was found missing. Despite making inquiries in the neighbourhood and at relatives’ houses, her whereabouts could not be traced. It was suspected that someone had enticed and taken her away. It was also reported that one Chandrashekhar, a resident of Village Kosmarra, was missing from his house since the date of the incident. On the basis of the said report, FIR bearing Crime No. 39/2016 was registered at Police Station Komakhan under

3

Section 363 IPC against accused Chandrashekhar as a suspect. During investigation, the spot map and site plan were prepared, and documents relating to the date of birth of the prosecutrix were seized. On 05.06.2016, the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement was recorded, wherein she stated that she was mentally disturbed after failing in Class 10^th examinations. On the night of 15.05.2016, she had a conversation with accused Chandrashekhar, who told her that he would come to take her and asked her to meet him outside the house. Thereafter, at about 11:30 PM, when her parents were asleep, she left her house along with some clothes and a mobile phone. She further stated that a magic vehicle was waiting outside, in which accused Chandrashekhar, co-accused Devnarayan, and the driver were present. She went along with them to the house of Chandrashekhar’s uncle. Thereafter, Devnarayan and the driver returned with the vehicle. The prosecutrix stayed at Raipur for about five days, thereafter at Bhilai for two days at a relative’s house, then moved to Kawardha where the accused worked in a restaurant. Subsequently, on 30.05.2016, they returned to Bhilai, and on 03.06.2016, went to Bilaspur. At Bilaspur Railway Station, she was found by the police and was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Bilaspur. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC was also recorded before the Court. The accused persons were arrested. Upon completion of investigation,

4

charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 34 IPC and Sections 8 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

(POCSO Act).

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating

evidence available on record, the Sessions Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2017 convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences in the manner as described in para 2 of this judgment.

Hence, this appeal.

4. In order to prove the charges against the appellant, prosecution

examined as many as 11 witnesses which a