1 CRA No. 407 of 2016 2026:CGHC:1866-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 407 of 2016 [Arising out of judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.83/2015 by the Additional Special Sessions Judge Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.]  Hemant Kumar Dugga S/o Bajaaru Ram Dugga, aged about 20 years, R/o Village Godri, Police Station Antagarh, Civil and Revenue District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station, Antagarh, Civil and Revenue District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. For State-Respondent :- Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board (13.01.2026) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Additional Special Sessions Judge, Bhanupratppur, District North ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2026.01.14 10:40:45 +0530 2 CRA No. 407 of 2016 Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, in Special Sessions Trial No.83/2015 by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life, till his death, with fine of 50,000/-; ₹ in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Prosecution story:- 2. The case projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that six months prior to 04.09.2015, at village Godri, Police Station Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the minor victim (PW-6) against her wishes by which she got pregnant. Thereafter, the victim (PW-6) suffered intense pain in her abdomen for which she was treated at the Government Hospital, Antagarh, wherein, during treatment she suffered abortion and thereby, the appellant committed the offence. Against the said act of the appellant, FIR was registered vide Ex.P/6. Spot map and crime details form were prepared vide Exs.P/8 & P/17. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. Victim was medically examined by Dr. Priti Singh (PW-4) who prepared the victim’s medical report vide Ex.P/4. In the medical report, it was opined by doctor (PW-4), 3 CRA No. 407 of 2016 victim had suffered sexual intercourse; she had pregnancy of 14- 16 weeks and also suffered abortion. According to doctor (PW-4) age of the victim was 14-18 years and with regard to age determination the doctor referred for ossification test. Dr. Ujjawala Goswami (PW-8), who conducted the ossification of the victim (PW-6), has opined that the age of victim (PW-6) was 16 to 19 years at the time of incident. Appellant was also subject to medical examination and according to his medical examination report (Ex.P/19) proved by Dr. Shital DuggA (PW-10), he was capable of sexual intercourse. 3. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents and defence in support of its case has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 5. The learned Special Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offences as mentioned in the opening 4 CRA No. 407 of 2016 paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission:- 6. Mr. Rajkumar Pali, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. He would also submit that the age of the victim has not been proved to be less than 18 years on the date and time of offence as Mr. Mansha Ram Mandavi (PW-1), Head Master, who is the author of dakhil karij (Ex.P/2C), has clearly stated that on the basis of report of Aaganwadi worker he entered the date of birth of the victim, however, the said Aaganwadi worker has not been examined. He would further submit that it is a case of the defence that the victim (PW-6) was the consenting party and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to prove the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He would also 5 CRA No. 407 of 2016 submit that in the victim’s medical report (Ex.P/4) has supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records meticulously. Discussion & Analysis:- 9. Age of the victim:- The trial Court has held the age of the victim was less than 18 years at the time of offence relying upon the dakhil kharij register (Ex.P/2C) proved by Mansha Ram Mandavi (PW-1), Head Master. In the dakhil kharij regiter (Ex.P/2C) date of the birth of the victim is 20.09.1999, meaning thereby, the age of the victim (PW-6) was between 15 to 16 on the date and time of offence. PW-1 in cross examination of his statement before the Court has clearly stated that with regard to date of birth documents were sought from Aaganwadi Worker on the basis of which entry was made. However, the said Aaganwadi worker has not been examined who gave the information about date of birth has not been examined. In this regard the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit 1 may be noticed herein, in which their Lordships of the 1 AIR 1988 SC 1796 6 CRA No. 407 of 2016 Supreme Court has held that the date of birth mentioned in the scholar’s register of secondary school certificate has no probative value unless either the parents are examined or the person on whose information the entry may have been made, is examined. In the present case, the Aaganwadi worker has not been examined on the basis of whose information the entry with regard to date of birth of the victim was made and even otherwise mother of the victim (PW-5) has also examined, but she did not state anything about the date of birth of the victim. Furthermore, prosecution itself has brought the document (Ex.P/2C) in the against the statement of Dr. Ujjawala Goswami (PW-8) who has conducted the ossification test (Ex.P/11) in which she has stated that the age of the victim was between 16 to 19 years on the date and time of offence. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish that the age of the victim was less than 18 years on the date and time of offence, it is held accordingly. 10.It is the case of the defence that the victim was the consenting party. In this regard statement of the victim (PW-6) may be noticed herein in which she has clearly stated that she had love affair with the appellant they have done marriage secretly. In her statement she expressed her unwillingness to make statement against the appellant. However, in the medical report (Ex.P/4) 7 CRA No. 407 of 2016 proved by Dr. Priti Singh (PW-4), it was opined that victim had suffered sexual intercourse; she had pregnancy of 14-16 weeks and also suffered abortion, hymen was also found ruptured. But in support of medical examination FSL report has not been brought on record and even otherwise, it is case of consenting party and, therefore, it would be unsafe to base the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the medical evidence and statement of the victim (PW-6). Conclusion:- 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Special Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence in question, is hereby set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principle of benefit of doubt. Since the appellant is stated to be on bail, they need not surrender. However, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as per provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 8 CRA No. 407 of 2016 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge Ankit