2026:CGHC:11163-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 257 of 2018

1 - Om Prakash Sao, S/o Late Maksudan Sao, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Post Vasmani, Gaya Bihar, Present Address: Rajiv Nagar, Near B.C.G. School, Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

--- Appellant versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Police Station: Supela District Durg Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

With ACQA No. 28 of 2021

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

---Appellant Versus

1 - Om Prakash Sao S/o Late Maksudan Sao Aged About 50 Years R/o Village/ Post Vasmani, Gaya (Bihar)

Present Address- Rajiv Nagar, Near BCJ School, Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Rajani Dubey, J.

09.03.2026

1. Since the aforesaid criminal appeal and acquittal appeal arise out of the same judgment, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment.

2. The present Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2018 and Acquittal Appeal No. 28 of 2021 arise out of the judgment dated 22.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Durg, in Special Criminal Case No. 163 of 2015. By the said judgment, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2018 was convicted for offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and four years, respectively, along with a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, with the usual default stipulation. By the same judgment, the respondent in Acquittal Appeal No. 28 of

2021 was acquitted of the charges under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (k) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of the alleged incident the parents and brother of the prosecutrix went outside the house and the prosecutrix was present at home along with her younger sister. Taking advantage of the absence of the family members, the accused Omprakash Sahu allegedly took the prosecutrix to the vacant house of her uncle and committed sexual intercourse with her. It is further alleged that when younger sister of the prosecutrix, witnessed the incident, the accused threatened her with dire consequences and fled from the spot. In the evening, when the mother of the prosecutrix returned home, her younger daughter along with a neighbour informed her about the incident. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken for medical examination to a lady doctor, who opined that the prosecutrix was pregnant for about two to three months. Based on the said information, the mother of the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Supela against the accused Omprakash Sahu alleging commission of sexual assault upon her daughter. On the basis of the said report, a crime was registered and investigation was set in motion.

During the course of investigation, seizures were made and accused and the prosecutrix were taken for medical examination. Thereafter, the prosecutrix identified the accused during identification proceedings conducted in accordance with law and an identification panchnama (Ex.P/7) was prepared in this regard.

Further, during the investigation, the Investigating Officer caused the prosecutrix to be medically examined by a radiologist for the purpose of determination of her age. On the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation and the evidence collected, the accused was arrested. The seized articles were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. After completion of the investigation and upon finding sufficient material establishing the commission of the offence, a final report (charge-sheet) was filed against the accused before the trial Court. Thereafter, charges were framed