2026:CGHC:19498 The date when The date when The date when the the judgment the judgment is judgment is uploaded on is reserved pronounced the website Operative Full

08.04.2026 28.04.2026 -- 28.04.2026 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 08.04.2026 Judgment delivered on : 28.04.2026 CRA No. 994 of 2008

1 - Umesh Sinha, S/o Indal Ram Sinha, Aged about 37 years, R/o Quarter No.1 B/25, Amrapali Society, Tehsil & District- Raipur (C.G.)

... Appellant versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Ms. Anshu Ratre appears on behalf of Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, P.L.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

CAV Judgment

1. This appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2008 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 32/2007, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as follows:-

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, aged about 17 years and 1½ months, has allegedly been subjected to continuous physical abuse for the past 1½ years by one Umesh Sinha, purportedly with the tacit support and protection of her mother and her maternal relative. It is alleged that whenever the complainant raised objections or disclosed such acts to her mother and said relative, instead of providing protection, they supported the accused person and dismissed her allegations on the pretext that he was financially supporting the household, thereby suppressing her grievances. Being aggrieved and mentally distressed by such conduct, the complainant was compelled to leave her parental home and has been residing at the house of an acquaintance for the past one month for her safety and well-being. It is further alleged that her father has also supported the actions of the aforesaid persons, thereby subjecting the complainant to continued harassment and making her life unbearable. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the Women Police Station, Raipur, registered a criminal case and upon completion of investigation, filed a First Information Report before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. Subsequently, the case has been committed/transferred to this Court for trial in accordance with law. Learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellant under Section 376 of IPC, to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all incriminating circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence were put to him for explanation. The accused/appellant denied all such circumstances in toto, pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In support of his defence, the accused/appellant examined Savitri Verma as D.W.-1, Shivkaran Singh as D.W.-2, Smt. Droupati Tiwari as D.W.-3, Mona Upadhyay as D.W.-4, Rajjak Khan as D.W.-5, Santosh Dubey as D.W. -6 and Manju Rathore as D.W.-7.

4. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, found the prosecution case to be credible and trustworthy. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 30.09.2008, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as detailed in para 1 of the said judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law, facts and the circumstances of the case and is therefore unsustainable. It is contended that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecu