2026:CGHC:22432 The date The date The date when the judgment is uploaded on when the when the the website judgment is judgment is reserved pronounced Operative Full

06-04-2026 13-05-2026 - 13-05-2026 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 832 of 2008 Manoj Kumar Rajwade, S/o Shri Harvansh Rajwade, aged about 26 years, Occupation – Agriculture, R/o Village – Turna, P.S.- Darima, District Sarguja (CG)

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through S.H.O., P.S. Darima, District Sarguja (CG)

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

CAV Judgment

The appellant in this appeal calls in question the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

4.9.2008 passed by Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Surguja at Ambikapur in Special ST No.129/2006 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Under Section 376(1) of Indian RI for seven years, pay a fine of Penal Code. Rs.200/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month.

Under Section 366 of Indian Penal RI for five years, pay a fine of Code. Rs.200/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month.

Under Section 365 of Indian Penal RI for two years, pay a fine of Code. Rs.200/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.4.2006 the accused/appellant through other co-accused called the prosecutrix, a member of scheduled caste community, to the house of Jaimati where the appellant allured her of getting a job and then took her to the residence of an MLA at Ambikapur where the appellant committed rape upon her and confined her there. The appellant got her signature on some documents there and later he said that these documents are regarding their court marriage. After receiving information about the prosecutrix being confined in the house of MLA, her family members reached there and brought her back. On 6.6.2006 the prosecutrix went to the house of her sister and on 9.6.2006 the accused/appellant along with 4-5 persons in a jeep reached the house of her sister and started dragging her by hand. On report being lodged to the above effect, offence under Sections 365, 342, 120B, 366, 465, 352, 506B of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short “the SC/ST Act”) was registered against the accused persons. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons u/s 365, 342, 120B, 366, 465, 452, 506, 376 of IPC and 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act.

03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 366, 376(1), 120B, 365 & 465 of IPC against the accused/appellant whereas co-accused Lalit Kumar and Ku. Jaimati were charged under Sections 366 & 120B of IPC and co-accused Alam Das was charged under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Sections 366 & 120B of IPC. They abjured the charges and prayed for trial.

04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court while acquitting the co-accused persons of all the charges, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

06. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. From the statement of the prosecutrix it is clear that she went with the appel