Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ

07.05.2026

1. This appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.05.2013 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in S.T. No. 49/2011, whereby the appellant has been acquitted from offence punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376 of the IPC and convicted as under:

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant (father of the victim), resident of Indiranagar Basanpali, was employed as a driver and on the date of incident had gone for duty in the morning hours. The victim, aged about 12 years, had gone to her school for participation in the Republic Day programme.

3. According to the prosecution, when the complainant returned home in the afternoon and enquired regarding the victim, he was informed that she had not returned from school. Thereafter, he made efforts to trace her in the locality. During the course of such search, he allegedly received information that the accused had taken the victim to a vacant house situated near the roadside at Indiranagar.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that when the complainant reached the said place, he allegedly heard the voice of the victim from inside the room. Upon intervention by the complainant, the accused allegedly fled from the spot taking the victim along with him. Since the victim could not be traced despite search, the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Tamnar at about 5:30 p.m., on the basis of which FIR bearing Crime No.19/2011 was registered initially for offences punishable under Sections 365 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The prosecution further alleged that thereafter the accused took the victim to a secluded place and subjected her to sexual assault during the intervening night. On 27.01.2011, the victim was recovered from the custody/company of the accused.

6. During investigation, the victim was medically examined after obtaining consent from her parents and the accused was also subjected to medical examination. The clothes and other relevant articles were seized and forwarded for forensic and chemical examination. The investigating agency prepared the spot map and recorded statements of witnesses including Lalitabai, Laxminarayan, Pankaj and Jagatram under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 365, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda. The learned Magistrate, upon finding prima facie material against the accused, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law.

8. The accused denied the allegations and abjured guilt. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused pleaded innocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated. In defence, Rajaram Patnaik (DW-1) was examined.

9. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited as many as 19 documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-19).

10. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are contrary to the evidence available on record and settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence. It has been argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in law, part