1 2025:CGHC:8812-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 724 of 2022 Gulshan @ Pakla Deshlahre S/o Bajeram Deshlahre Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Manodharpur, Chowki Maro, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Aakash Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board P er Ramesh Sinha, CJ 20/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Aakash Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. It has been stated by learned State Counsel that notice has been served upon PW-3, mother of the victim. 3. Today, though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A.No. 01/2022, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.02.22 10:59:42 +0530 2 bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act) Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 25/2020, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently:- CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 376(2)(j)(n) of the IPC R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 years. U/s 373(3) of IPC R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 years. U/s 313 of IPC R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 years. U/s 506 Part II of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one year. U/s 4 of POCSO Act R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 years. 5. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 21.08.2020, the victim submitted a written complaint (Ex.P-1) at Police Outpost, Maro, 3 P.S. Nangghat to the effect that about two months ago, when she was returning from the shop to buy grocery items, the accused called out to her, held her hand, took her to a room in his house and forcibly established physical relations with her and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident. About one and half months after the said incident when the victim did not get her menses and she informed the accused about it, the accused gave her abortion medicine due to which the victim suffered excessive bleeding. When her mother asked her, she told her mother about the incident. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint of the victim, on finding prima facie evidence of crime against accused Gulshan alias Pakla Deshlahare, FIR No. Zero Crime was lodged at Police Station Maro under Sections 376 (3), 328, 313, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 vide Ex.P-2, thereafter number FIR was registered as Crime No.260/2020 at Police Station Nandghat vide Ex.P-26. Crime Details Form was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Spot map of the incident site was prepared by the concerned Patwari vide Ex.P-4. After taking consent from the victim and her mother vide Ex.P-5, the victim was medically examined by Dr. Deepmala Rani Mandal (PW-4) and its report was given vide Ex.P-7. On presenting by the victim, one blue colour underwear and one black colour legging of the victim containing blood stains over it and Final Evaluation Result of Session 2018-20 of Primary School, Manoharpur were seized vide Ex.P-6. 4 6. The accused/appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-20 and information of his arrest was given vide Ex.P-21. On presenting by the accused, one black colour underwear containing sport of sperms at different parts was seized vide Ex.P-15. The accused was sent for his medical examination to Government Hospital, Nawagarh, vide Ex.P-17 and his medical examination report was obtained vide Ex.P-17A. Seized undergarment of the victim, her slacks and underwear of the accused were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P-23, whereform report was received vide Ex.P-24. In order to ascertain the age of the victim, a memo was written to the concerned Headmaster for providing Dakhil Kharij Register vide Ex.P-09 and on presenting by him, the Original Dakhil Kharij Register was seized vide Ex.P-10 and after obtaining certified copy of the relevant pages vide Ex.P-12, the original register was handed over to the concerned Headmaster on Supurdnama vide Ex.P-11. 7. Statements of the victim and witnesses were recorded and statement of the victim was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and after other formal investigation in the case, a charge sheet was filed against the accused before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POSCO Act) Bemetara. 8. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant under Sections 376(3), 313, 506 Part – II of IPC and Section 3(a)/4 of 5 the POCSO Act. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 9. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-26) . The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. 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. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that though as per case of the prosecution, victim was minor on the date of incident, but this fact has not been proved by adducing lawful evidence, hence the finding recorded by learned trial Court in this regard is not sustainable. He further argued that learned trial Court erred in reading FSL report of the articles seized from the victim as well as from the accused which also does not prove the incident of rape. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the Ultra-Sonography Report given by the Department of Radiodiagnosis, Memorial Hospital, Raipur, whereby no evidence of retained products of conception has been found. The prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that there is no independent witness, which does not corroborate the 6 evidence of the victim. Hence, the conviction is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the victim (PW-1) has clearly deposed about the conduct of the appellant in her Court statement that firstly the appellant has forcibly established physical relations with the victim and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident and after about one and half months of the said incident when the victim did not get her menses and she informed the accused about it, the accused gave her abortion medicine due to which the victim suffered excessive bleeding. He further submitted that the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 13. The first question for consideration before this Court would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that on the date of incident, the victim was minor ? 14. When a person is charged for the offence punishable under the POCSO Act, or for rape punishable in the Indian Penal Code, the age of the victim is significant and essential ingredient to prove 7 such charge and the gravity of the offence gets changed when the child is below 18 years, 12 years and more than 18 years. Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act defines the “child” which means any person below the age of eighteen years. 15. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding principles for determining the age of a child, which read as follows : “22. On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed under Section 68(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as under : “12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.? (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining – 8 (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. 9 (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub- rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.” 23. Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine the age of the prosecutrix VW- PW6. The manner of determining age conclusively, has been expressed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated option available, would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and 10 conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion.” 16. In this regard, the victim (PW-1) herself has stated that she has four brothers and one sister and she is fourth among them and her date of birth is 14.04.2008. In the cross-examination by the defence, she accepted the suggestion that she has given her date of birth as 14.04.2008 as per the school records. Her brother had got her admitted to school. It is noteworthy that the defence has not challenged the victim’s brother (PW-2) with regard to the victim’s date of birth or the fact that the victim was not a minor on the date of incident. The prosecution has also presented victim’s Class-V Marksheet vide Ex.P-6 and a certified copy of dakhil kharij register (Ex.P-12), wherein date of birth of the victim has been mentioned as 14.04.2008 (wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment as 14.08.2008). The defence has not presented any oral or documentary evidence to refuse the said date of birth, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the date of birth of the victim, as 14.04.2008 hence, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge has rightly held that on the 11 date of incident, the victim was minor. We hereby affirm the said finding. 17. The next question for consideration before us is whether the accused raped the victim and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the said incident and when the victim became pregnant due to the rape by the accused, she was given medicine by the accused with the intention of abortion and her abortion was caused? 18. In this regard, the statement of the victim (PW-01) is that on the date of the incident she had gone to Sushila's shop in her village to buy some goods and was returning after buying the goods from there, when on the way the accused Gulshan called her saying 'come sister' and took her to his room by holding her hand and started removing her clothes and when she screamed, he threatened to kill her and also abused her. The victim says that after doing wrong to her i.e. raping her, the accused threatened to kill her if she told anyone, due to which she did not tell anyone about the incident. According to the victim, after about one and a half months when she did not get her menstruation, and when she told the accused about this, the accused forbade her from telling anything to anyone. The victim (PW-1) further says that on the second day at 6 p.m. when she went to Gunjera Road for nature’s call, she met the accused there who was accompanied by 6 other boys. One of the boys held her hand and the other boy held her hair and pulled her head and then the accused Gulshan put a 12 medicine tablet in her mouth. The victim says that she tried to spit out the tablet but could not do so and the tablet went inside her mouth. After that the accused and all the other boys left from there. The victim says that after the accused fed her the tablet, she started bleeding and her period started the next day. But when her mother asked her because she started bleeding profusely, she told her about the rape committed by the accused. 19. According to the victim, when the victim's mother told everything to the accused's father, he drove her mother out of the house, then on 19 August she went to the police station with her brothers and made a written complaint (ExP-1), on the basis of which a report (ExP-2) was registered at the police station. The victim also says that the police and the Patwari had prepared a spot map (Exs.P-3 & 4) after questioning her and also got her medically examined after taking her consent (Ex.P-5) and had seized her underwear and slacks from her and prepared a seizure memo (ExP 6). 20. Sub-Inspector R.K. Kashyap (PW-6) also states that on 21.08.2020, on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the victim against the accused at the Maro Chowki, regarding forcing her to have sexual relations with him when she was a minor, forcing her to abort her pregnancy and threatening to kill her, he found prima facie evidence of crime against the accused and lodged a First Information Report (ExP-2) of zero crime number at the Maro Chowki, which was registered as Crime No. 260/2020 at 13 Nandghat Police Station. In cross-examination conducted by the defence, he denies the suggestion that the victim did not give a written application (ExP-1), rather he got the said application prepared at the police station and only got the victim to sign it. He also denies this suggestion that the victim was not aware of the facts mentioned in the written application (ExP-1). 21. Police station in-charge Vipin Rangari (PW-8) states that on receipt of the First Information Report of crime number zero lodged against the accused at Chowki Maro, he registered the same as First Information Report (Ex.P-26) of crime number 260/2020 of Police Station Nandghat. 22. In paragraph 16 of the cross-examination conducted by the defence, the victim (PW-1) accepts the suggestion that whenever she went out of the house and had a conversation with someone, she would definitely tell her parents about it, but she did not tell her mother about the incident that happened with her on the date of the incident. In paragraph 17 of the cross-examination, the victim says that the accused did not take her by holding her hand and she does not remember for how long she stayed at the accused's house, but she says that she stayed at the accused's house for a long time. In paragraph 18 of the cross-examination, the victim says that when the accused Gulshan took off her clothes, she screamed and also bit the accused's hand, but she did not scratch the accused with her nails, but she denies the suggestion that on hearing her scream, many people gathered 14 outside the accused's house. According to the victim (PW-1) she cannot tell whether her screaming at the accused's house was heard by people in the nearby houses or not, but she says that when the accused removed her clothes, her clothes i.e. the top she was wearing got torn and she came back home wearing same torn top. But her mother did not see her returning wearing the torn top and neither did she give the torn top to the police. Rather she says that she gave her underwear and slacks to the police. In paragraph 22 of the cross-examination, the victim says that while the accused was doing bad things with her, blood came out from her private part, but when she returned home, there was no blood on her underwear. She gave the same underwear which she was wearing at the time of the incident to the police. 23. The victim (PW-1) says that when she was bleeding heavily, she had removed her underwear and slacks as it had got spoiled and the same clothes were seized by the police from her. In paragraph 25 of the cross-examination, the victim accepts the suggestion that she used to visit the house of the accused and play, but she denies the suggestion that her family members had forbidden her from going to the house of the accused, rather she says that when she was ill, her family members had forbidden her from going to the house of the accused. One month before the date of the incident, when she was ill, her sister, who worked in Anganwadi, brought her a medicine tablet, but it was a tablet for fever and pain in hands and legs. The victim (PW-1) categorically denies the 15 suggestion put forward by the defence that her brother used to tease the sister of the accused on a regular basis and hence there were regular quarrels between the two families and due to this when the accused Gulshan had beaten up her/victim's brother over this, her family members had threatened to take action against the accused and implicate him in the case. The victim denies the defence's suggestion that the accused never took her to his house nor did he do anything wrong to her. She also denies the suggestion that she never got pregnant from the accused nor did the accused ever feed her any pill, rather she had bleeding and blood came out due to heating of the pill given by her/victim's sister. 24. The mother of the victim (PW-3) has also given evidence in line with the facts stated by the victim in her examination-in-chief. In paragraph 08 of the cross-examination by the defence, the mother of the victim denies the suggestion that the victim's brothers used to molest the sister of the accused, due to which the accused beat them up and that both the families had a grudge on this issue. In paragraph 09 of the cross-examination, the mother of the victim denies the suggestion that the victim's private parts bled because her sister-in-law gave her a pill. 25. The victim's brother (PW-2) says that he studies in Bhilai and at the time of the incident, due to the lockdown, he had come home on vacation. At that time, his sister/victim was studying in Navagarh hostel and at the time of the incident, she too had come 16 home on vacation three months ago. While staying at home, one day the victim's health deteriorated, then her mother told that blood was coming from the victim's private part, then her mother took the victim to a private doctor, where it was found that the victim was pregnant. When her mother questioned her sister/victim about the victim being pregnant, the victim told that the accused Gulshan alias Pakla had forcibly raped the victim in his house. In the cross-examination conducted by the defense, this witness admits that the victim had never told him about the accused raping her. He is not aware of the fact that about a month after the date of the incident, due to the victim's ill health, her sister had brought her a tablet for fever and pain in hands and legs, but he clearly denies the suggestion that the victim suffered bleeding and blood came out due to heating of the same tablet. 26. Medical Officer Dr. Deepmala Rani Mandal (PW-4) who conducted the physical examination of the victim states that on 21.08.2020 at 6 p.m. the victim was brought before her for examination by lady constable Anupama Dubey from Chowki Maro. In her external examination of the victim, she found that she was fully conscious and her pulse and BP were normal and her secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed and there were no signs of injury on her body. There were no marks. In the internal examination of the victim, she found that the victim was bleeding from her private parts and when her urine pregnancy test was done, it came positive and she was pregnant. Due to bleeding 17 from the private parts of the victim, the slide of vaginal swab was not taken. This medical witness says that since the victim was a 13-year-old girl and was pregnant, he referred the victim to the district hospital Bemetara for further examination, the report given by this witness in this regard is (ExP-7). This lady doctor (PW-4) also says that on the same date, a lady constable brought a packet wrapped in a newspaper for examination, which contained a dark blue old used underwear and a slacks. The said underwear and slacks had brown spots, which she underlined with a red pen and she resealed the same and handed over the same report (Ex.P-8) to the same constable, advising her to get the chemical examination done. 27. Medical witness Monisa Nair (PW-7) says that on 24.08.2020, the victim was referred to District Hospital Bemetara for sonography by Dr. Deepmala Rani Mandal from CHC Navagarh due to excessive bleeding. On the said basis, the victim's blood and urine tests were conducted, but both the tests were found normal. In this regard, she accepts her signature on the test report (ExP- 25) given by this witness. This medical witness says that because the victim's blood and urine test reports were normal and there was no abnormality in them, the victim was referred to Medical College, Raipur for detailed examination, but as per the sonography report of the victim, her uterus and ovaries were found to be normal and Retained Placenta or Product of Conception was not found in her uterus. 18 28. In the cross-examination conducted by the defence, the said lady doctor (PW-7) accepts the suggestion that in the examination of the victim, no definite opinion could be given regarding her pregnancy or abortion, but this witness says that in the examination of the victim done at Navagarh, the UTP test was positive, but in the examination done by her, no opinion could be given regarding the abortion of the victim. She accepts the suggestion that a positive UTP test does not mean that the concerned woman/girl is pregnant, rather she says that the actual situation can be known from her sonography test within 10 to 12 days and due to giving medicine to the victim on 10.08.2020, the child had miscarriage on 11.08.2020. It was reported that there was bleeding since 21.08.2020, which was examined at Navagarh on 21.08.2020 and by herself on 24.08.2020 and the sonography of the victim was done on 03.09.2020, hence at the time of sonography all the tests of the victim were normal. 29. Medical witness Dr. L.D. Thakur (PW-9) who conducted the physical examination of the accused has given unrefuted evidence to the effect that on examination of the accused, he was found to be fully capable for performing sexual intercourse and he has given report in this regard vide Ex.P-17A. 30. Thus, from the analysis of the aforesaid evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, it is quite vivid that when the victim was returning from the shop, the accused called out to her, held her hand, took her to a room in his house and forcibly established 19 physical relations with her and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident and about one and half months after the said incident when the victim did not get her menses and she informed the accused about it, the accused forcefully gave her abortion medicine due to which the victim suffered excessive bleeding and finally abortion was caused. 31. 31. Now, the issue that arises for consideration is whether the testimony of the victim deserves acceptance and whether the prosecution has established the case of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 32. In the case of Ganesan v. State, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573, the Supreme Court observed and held that that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. 33. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, reported in (2019) 11 SCC 575, it was observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It was further observed and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 34. In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34, the Supreme Court observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which 20 necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. 35. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the victim that too when opinion regarding her pregnancy and abortion were supported by the medical evidence, therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed rape on minor victim. 36. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and as such, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 37. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed 21 any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict. 38. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 39. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 15.02.2022. 40. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra