1 2025:CGHC:38085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1152 of 2013 Shail Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Chhahura Yadav, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Thana Sipat District- Bilaspur C.G., Presently R/o Village- Delari Ps Punjipathara, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh …..Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S.- A. JA. K., District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Afroz Khan, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 01.08.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 01.10.2013 passed by learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 32/2013, whereby the appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine amount of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to under additional R.I. for 01 year. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case is that on 10.01.2013 at about 12.20 pm, Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 the complainant/father of the prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Station Punjipathara that he is doing labour work and having two children. On Tuesday, he went to Gerwani for treatment along with children and wife due to ill health, in addition to when he returned from Gerwani, his brother-in-law told the wife of the complainant that on Tuesday night at around 7.30 pm, he was returning home after watching T.V. at that time heard a sound from the cow’s shed and when he saw that a boy was hugging a girl, so he lit a torch and found that the girl was his niece and the boy took advantage of the situation, fled away from the spot. The girl told him that a boy was working in the tower company caught, gagged her and thereby did a wrong things with her. The father of the prosecutrix asked her daughter about the incident, then she told him that when she had gone to fetch water, the accused caught her alone and did the wrong things. The complainant told the said incident to the village’s Sarpanch and also to other villagers. The complainant’s daughter also told him that the accused threatened her to not raise any hue and cry, otherwise he will kill her. During the investigation, obtaining the consent from the father of the prosecutrix and taking due permission from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide Ex. P/11, prosecutrix’s medical examination was conducted and the report is received vide Ex. P/9. After reaching the place of incident, spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/13 before the witnesses as per brother-in-law- Ram Lodha of the complainant. One blue ladies underwear, black colour belt, slippers and empty plastic bag were seized from the spot vide Ex. P/3. With ascertaining the date of birth and caste of the prosecutrix, Fifth Class mark-sheet was seized, produced by the father of the prosecutrix and the sealed packet given by the doctor was seized through seizure memo Ex. P/5. Dakhil Kharij 3 register was seized with regard to the age of the prosecutrix vide Ex. P/6, caste certificate was seized vide Ex. P/8. Statements of the witnesses as well as prosecutrix statement were recorded. The seized articles were sent to FSL, Raipur for chemical examination vide Ex. P/18 and the acknowledgment was received vide Ex. P/17. Spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex. P/4. On completion of the investigation proceedings, the accused was found to have committed the offence and the appellant was arrested. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge- sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant/accused has abjured guilt was subjected to trial. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 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 witness adduced by the appellant in his defence. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record thereby convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 4 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 learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that learned trial Court has erred by not considering the statement of witnesses also ignoring the fact that there are prosecution has not produced the eye-witness before learned trial Court. He further submits that there were no name of the appellant disclosed by the prosecutrix and identification parade was also not conducted. Lastly, he submits that the appellant having completing the entire jail sentence has been already released from the jail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant accordingly. However, no dispute is made regarding the fact that the appellant after completion of the entire jail sentenced has been released from the jail and in this regard he has filed a letter dated 01.08.2025 of Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, wherein it has been mentioned that the appellant has completed his jail sentence and on 27.10.2020, has been released from the said jail. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is evident from record of learned learned trial Court that it framed charges for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 376 of IPC by acquitting of the offence under 5 SC & ST Act and sentenced him as prescribed in inaugural para of this judgment. 9. It is evident from the statement of prosecutrix’s father (PW-2) that on the date of incident, prosecurtix was aged 12 years. In cross- examination, he stated that he produced certificate of his daughter with regard to her date of birth. 10. PW-7 Dataram Gupta, the Head Master stated that he produced Dakhil Kharij Register before the trial Court, wherein it is mentioned that date of birth of the prosecutrix as 10.06.2000 and he filed original Dakhil Kharij Register vide Ex. P/6. 11. PW-9 Dr. Meena Patel, who examined the prosecutrix on 10.01.2013 and also opined approximate age of the prosecutrix i.e., 13 years old and gave her report vide Ex. P/9. 12. PW-1 prosecutrix stated that on the date of incident her parents went to Gerwani for purchasing medicine, at that time her uncle (mama) stayed with her in the house, at about 8.00 pm when she went to fetch water, the accused caught, gagged and took towards the cow shed where he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, at that time her uncle heard a sound from the cow shed and he lit a torch, when she was found crying, the accused fled from the spot. Then, she told the said incident to her uncle and on the next day along with her parents lodged the report before the concerned police station. The prosecutrix identified the accused before learned trial Court and stated against him. 13. Dr. Meena Patel (PW-9) examined the prosecutrix and found ruptured hymen and there is redness swelling in the private part of the prosecutrix and opined that sexual intercourse was done with her. 6 14. It is quite evident from the statement of the prosecutrix that she categorically stated against the appellant and she remained firm in her cross-examination and the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 376 of IPC by acquitting of offence under Section 3(1) (xii) of SC and ST Act. Thus, 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. 15. In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. As the accused/appellant is reported to has been released from jail on 27.10.2020 after completion of the entire sentence, there is no need to pass any order regarding his arrest, surrender etc. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL