1 2025:CGHC:25346 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 750 of 2007 1 - Leel Satnami, S/o Sambal Satnami, Aged about 19 years, R/o Girdhari Kampa (Bholwapara), Police Station- Kunda, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O. Police Station- Kunda, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 18.06.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 17.07.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Sessions Trial No. 2 46/2006, whereby learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case, are that the prosecutrix was living with her parents. At the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was in the house of her maternal uncle along with her mother, brother and sisters at Bholwapara. On 04.09.2000, at about 9:00 a.m., the prosecutrix was playing in the house of Rooplal. At that time, the accused/appellant reached there, pushed the prosecutrix on a cot and by gagging her mouth, committed rape on her and thereafter, he ran away from the spot. Blood was oozing out from the private part of the prosecutrix and she was weeping. Thereafter, her mother came there and took her away. The matter was narrated to other persons. Subsequently, the FIR was lodged at Police Station- Kunda. During investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined. Seizures were made. The kotwari book was seized for verification of the age of the prosecutrix. Spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 299 of Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court framed the charge under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC against the 3 appellant, to which the appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him & pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no evidence was adduced by the appellant in his defence. 4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is contrary to the facts, evidence and law. The trial Court has failed to consider that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. It is clear from the statements of the witnesses that the prosecutrix is a consenting party to the act done by the appellant. Prosecution evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely 4 appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant accordingly. Therefore, the contention made by the counsel for the appellant is not acceptable, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC against the appellant. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 450 of IPC and convicted him under Section 376 (2)(f) of IPC and sentenced him as prescribed in para 1 of this judgment. 9. In her examination-in-chief, prosecutrix (P.W.-6) stated that on the date of the incident, she was playing outside her maternal uncle’s home, at that time, accused/appellant came there and caught her from behind and pushed her on the cot and committed rape on her. She narrated the whole incident to her mother and, thereafter the FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged against the appellant. 10. Mother of the prosecutrix (P.W.-7) stated that she along with her daughter (prosecutrix) went to celebrate teej festival. On the date of incident, prosecutrix went outside for playing. She heard the noise of crying and went there then she saw that the prosecutrix 5 was lying on the cot and a cloth was stuffed in her mouth and accused/appellant was running from there. 11. Bhurubai (P.W.-9) also stated that on the date of incident, she saw the injuries in private part of the prosecutrix. 12. Dr. B. Buxy (P.W.-12) medically examined the prosecutrix and found positive sign of recent sexual intercourse. She gave her report (Ex.P/8) in this regard. 13. Learned trial Court found that the mother of the prosecutrix (P.W.- 6), Jayatri Bai (P.W.-8) and also other prosecution witnesses stated that the blood was oozing out from the private part of the prosecutrix. Medical evidence also supported the prosecution version. As regards the age of the prosecutrix, the trial Court found that according to the Kotwari register, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of incident appears to be only 11 years and 1 month and It is not possible to extend the age beyond this as the medical evidence also shows that the secondary sexual characteristics of the prosecutrix were not developed. Thus, it is proved that the age of the prosecutrix was definitely less than 15 years but was about 11 years old at the time of the incident. Hence, it is proved that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent which is an act of rape and is punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC. Further, learned trial Court found from the statements of other witnesses that they saw the accused running away from the scene 6 of the incident, but it is not clear from their statements that they saw the accused running away from somewhere. There is a lack of direct and proper evidence to clarify that the accused entered a particular place with the intention of having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, therefore the charge under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code is not proved against the appellant. Learned trial Court after minutely appreciation of oral and documentary evidence as well as medical evidence, acquitted the appellant under Section 450 of IPC and convicted him under Section 376 (2)(f) of IPC. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are well merited and based upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. 14. In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. As the accused/appellant is reported to have been released from jail after completion of the entire sentence, there is no need to pass any order regarding his arrest, surrender etc. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV