Page No.1 of 8 IN CRA-973-2018 2025:CGHC:926-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 20 18 [Arising out of judgment dated 09.05.2018, passed in Special Criminal Case No.06 of 2017 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramdas Basone), by the Additional Judge, Khairagarh to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)] Ramdas Basone, S/o Tilakchand Basone, aged about 24 years, Caste- Lodhi, R/o Village Bapdi, Ward No.15, Police Station Lanji, District Balaghat (Chhattisgarh) ---- Appellant (In Jail) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Bortalav, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed through CG High Court Legal Services Committee For Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (07.01.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J (1) This criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant under Section 374(2) of CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.05.2018, passed in Special Criminal Case No.06 of 2017 (State of Chhattisgarh v. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.01.10 13:32:35 +0530 Page No.2 of 8 IN CRA-973-2018 Ramdas Basone), by the Additional Judge, Khairagarh to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence U/s. 376(2)(i) of IPC r/w S.04 & 06 of POCSO Act, 2012 [However, in light of S.42 of POCSO Act, sentenced only U/s. 376(2)(i) of IPC] Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year. U/s. 506-B of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year. (2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 24.04.2017, between 03-04 AM in the morning, at Village Bortalab, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Bortalab, District Rajnandgaon (CG), the accused-appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault/sexual intercourse with the minor victim (PW-05), who was aged about 08 years (below 12 years of age) and further threatened her to kill if she discloses about the incident to anyone, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offences. (3) The further case of the prosecution is that when mother of the victim (PW-07) reported the matter to the police, FIR (Ex.P/15) was registered by the police against the appellant and wheels of investigation started running, in which, nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/03. After obtaining necessary consent vide Ex.P/04, the Page No.3 of 8 IN CRA-973-2018 victim (PW-05) was subjected to medical examination, which was conducted by Dr. Ananya Shrivastava (PW-17) and, as per her MLC report (Ex.P/19), it has been mentioned that no external injury was found and internal examination could not be done. On production of the clothes (sleks) of the victim by her mother (PW-07), the same was seized vide Ex.P/02. The accused-appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/05 and sent for medical examination. Appellant’s MLC report is Ex.P/17 and further his undergarment was also seized vide Ex.P/01. Thereafter, the aforesaid seized articles were sent for chemical analysis and, as per FSL report (Ex.P/28), it has been opined that the stains of human sperm/semen were found on the clothes (sleks) of the victim (PW-05). Further, in order to ascertain correct age of the victim (PW-05), her birth certificate (Article-A/2C) and school progress report (Article-A/1C) were obtained/seized, wherein her date of birth has been recorded as 03.02.2009, meaning thereby the victim (PW-04) was minor aged about 08 years 02 months (i.e. below 12 years) on the date of offence. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Page No.4 of 8 IN CRA-973-2018 (4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents apart from Final report, whereas the appellant in support of his defence, though neither examined any witness, but exhibited 03 documents. (5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) of IPC read with Sections 04 & 06 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and also under Section 506-B of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (6) Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence. In view of questions framed and answers given by the victim (PW-05) in her statement before the Court, the learned trial Court has erred in law while holding the appellant guilty for the offences in question. The medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. In alternative, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in light of the provisions contained under Section 31 of CrPC, the learned trial Court ought to have directed both the sentences, as awarded to the appellant, i.e. one for having committed offence Page No.5 of 8 IN CRA-973-2018 under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC read with Sections 04 & 06 of POCSO Act and another for offence under Section 506-B of IPC, to run concurrently, but the same has erroneously not been done by the learned trial Court in the present case. Therefore, modification to that extent in the impugned order is required to be done. Hence, the present appeal be allowed in full. (7) Per-contra, learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has been able to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that in view of statement of the victim (PW-05), wherein she has clearly narrated the incident and implicated appellant herein to be the author of the crime in question, coupled with other evidence available on record i.e. MLC report of the victim and FSL report (Ex.P/28), the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence mentioned herein-above. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. (8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. (9) In the instant case, considering the statement of the victim (PW-05), wherein she has clearly narrated the incident in question and implicated the appellant herein to be the author of the crime by stating that on the date and time of the offence while she was sleeping in her house, the appellant committed sexual intercourse Page No.6 of 8 IN CRA-973-2018 with her and further threatened her to kill if she discloses about the incident to anyone. The said stand of the victim (PW-05), has duly been supported by her cousin (PW-02), who informed the matter to her mother (PW-07) and, thereafter, the mother of the victim (PW- 07) reported the matter to the police and lodged FIR (Ex.P/15). Further, the victim (PW-05) was also subjected to some length of cross-examination, but she remained consistent in her version and, therefore, her testimony appears to be reliable and inspire confidence. The said stand of the victim (PW-05) is also in conformity with other evidence available on record FSL report (Ex.P/28), wherein it has been mentioned that stains of human sperm/semen were found on the clothes (sleks) of the victim. Furthermore, according to victim’s birth certificate (Article-A/1C) and school progress report (Article-A/2C), her date of birth has been recorded as 03.02.2009, meaning thereby the victim (PW-05) was minor aged about 08 years 02 months (i.e. below 12 years) on the date of offence. As such, on the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant is guilty of having committed sexual intercourse with the minor victim (PW-05), aged about less than 12 years of age, as also threatening her, is strictly in accordance with law and, for which, he has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) of IPC read with Sections 04 & 06 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and also under Section Page No.7 of 8 IN CRA-973-2018 506-B of IPC. We do not find any illegality or perversity in findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. (10) Now the question would be whether the sentences for both the offences, as awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court, i.e. one for having committed under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC read with Sections 04 & 06 of POCSO Act and another under Section 506-B of IPC, can be directed to be run concurrently ? (11) In order to answer this plea, it would be relevant to notice Section 31 of CrPC, which reads as under: “31. Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. (1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently. (2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher Court : Provided that - (a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than fourteen years; (b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the Page No.8 of 8 IN CRA-973-2018 amount of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence. (3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence.” (12) In that view of the matter and considering the above quoted provision of law qua Section 31 of CrPC, since in the present case the offence of sexual intercourse and threatening with the minor victim (PW-05) has been committed by the appellant in same transaction, therefore, while affirming the conviction and their respective sentences of the appellant for offence under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC read with Sections 04 & 06 of the POCSO Act, 2012 as also under Section 506-B of IPC, we deem it appropriate to direct that sentences for both the aforesaid crime/offences, as awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court, shall run concurrently. We hereby hold accordingly. (13) Consequently, with aforesaid modification, this criminal appeal stands dismissed. (14) Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and action. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge s@if