2026:CGHC:11829-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1441 of 2022 Santosh Kudiyam S/o Shri Peesa Kudiyam Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Dugoli, Thana Naimed, District - Bijapur, (C.G.)

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Naimed, District - Bijapur, (C.G.)

---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shr i Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgement on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

12/03/2026

1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CRPC’) has been filed by the appellant against impugned judgement of conviction and sentence dated Digitally signed by 10.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), VED VED PRAKASH PRAKASH DEWANGAN

DEWANGAN Date: South Bastar, Dantewada, in Special Sessions Case No. 12 of 2020,

2026.03.17

+0530

whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

CONVICTION SENTENCE R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, U/S 363 of I.P.C. in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I for 1 year.

Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in U/S 370(4) of I.P.C. default of payment of fine amount additional R.I for 1 year.

(Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently)

2. The brief facts of the case are that, father of the victim (PW-1) lodged a written report (exhibit P-1) to the police that, in the month of June, 2019, the appellant allured his daughter and took her to Delhi, who came back in the month of November, 2019. He came to know from the villagers that, another girl who also had gone to Delhi, has died due to hanging, then he asked from his daughter and she disclosed that the appellant took her Delhi on the assurance that he will engage her for monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/-, but on her insist, she brought back to Raipur and kept her in a hotel and in the night, outraged her modesty and on the next morning, brought back to the village. To avoid any other incident with any other girl of the village, he lodged the report. Based on the written report, FIR (exhibit P-2) was registered against the appellant for the offence under sections 363, 354 and 370 of IPC and section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’). Recovery panchnama (exhibit P-4) was prepared by the police in presence of the witnesses. With respect to age and date of birth of the victim, the police has seized her class- 3rd progress report card vide seizure memo (exhibit P-5) and her progress report card is (exhibit P-6). The school register (exhibit P-18)

has also been seized by the police vide seizure memo (exhibit P-17) and after retaining its attested true copy (exhibit P-18C), the original register was returned back to the school. As per the register, the date of birth of the victim is 10.07.2005. A hotel diary has also been seized by the police vide seizure memo (exhibit P-12) with respect to the staying of the victim and the appellant and the copy of hotel diary (exhibit P-15). The statements of the witnesses under section 161 CRPC and the statement of the victim under section 164 of the CRPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court under sections

363, 354 and 370 of IPC and section 8 of POCSO Act.

3. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under sections 363, 370(4) and 354 of IPC and section 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case.