2026:CGHC:20817 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

10.04.2026 05.05.2026 -- 05.05.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 10.04.2026 Judgment delivered on: 05.05.2026 CRA No. 217 of 2009

1 - Guddu @ Shiv Prasad, S/o Shri Shiv Mangal, Aged about 20 years, R/o Village Dwarika Nagar, (Korwapara), Police Station- Jai Nagar, District- Surguja (C.G.).

... Appellant versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Jai Nagar, District- Surguja (C.G.).

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, P.L.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

CAV Judgment

1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.03.2009, passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989] in Special Sessions Trial No. 84/2008, whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as follows:-

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant belongs to the Agariya caste, which is notified as a Scheduled Tribe, whereas the accused belongs to the Panika caste and does not fall within the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category. On the date of incident i.e. 02.06.2008, at about 11:00 PM, the complainant was present at her residence situated in Dwarika Nagar, Korwapara. At that time, the accused allegedly trespassed into her house and with the intent to outrage her modesty, forcibly caught hold of her and tore her salwar kameez. Upon her raising alarm, the accused gagged her and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will and without her consent. It is further the case of the prosecution that shortly after the incident, the complainant’s parents, who had gone to dine at her maternal uncle’s residence, returned home. On their arrival, the accused fled from the spot, leaving behind his underwear, vest and slippers at the place of occurrence. The matter was reported to Police Station Jaynagar on the following day, upon which a First Information Report was registered. The investigation was carried out in accordance with law and upon completion of the same, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur. Subsequently, the case came to be committed/transferred to this Court. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and in alternate Section 376(1) of IPC & Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him for explanation. The accused/appellant denied the said circumstances in toto, pleaded innocence and asserted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, in his defence, he did not examine any witness.

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 09.03.2009, 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 of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, pervers