1 2025:CGHC:8611-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1189 of 2019 Durgesh Verma @ Ravan Verma, S/o. Kaushal Prasad Verma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Giraoud Dihpara Ramnagar, Thana Dharsinwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer- Police Station Dharsinwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (19.02.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.02.20 14:55:13 +0530 2 judgment dated 29.06.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 198/2017, by which the appellant herein, while acquitting for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been convicted and sentenced as under : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s. 363 of IPC. : Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months' additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 366 of IPC. : Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months' additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 376 of IPC. : Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, 6 months' additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 506 Part-II of IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months' additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences to run concurrently. 3 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.03.2017 at 10:15 P.M. at village Gidhouri, the appellant herein abducted the victim (PW-1) from her lawful guardianship and taken to the house of deceased Devendra Verma (Appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. for committing murder of Devendra Verma in Criminal Appeal No.1308/2019, which is being decided separately) and committed sexual intercourse with the victim twice against her wish and thereby the aforesaid offences have been committed. The victim (PW-1) reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1, consent of the victim was taken vide Ex.P-2, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-4, statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ex.P-7, consent of the father of the victim was taken vide Ex.P-8 and victim was medically examined by Dr. Smt. Manju Tirki (PW-11) and found positive vide Ex.P-24 & Ex.P-25 and the vaginal slide of the victim was taken, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-20) stains of human sperm was found on the slide i.e. Article C. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing 4 and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents along-with Article 1 to Article 3 and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant herein for the aforesaid offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and though the victim (PW-1) has supported the case of the prosecution but she was not fully supported the case of the prosecution and though the medical evidence and forensic evidence are available on record, but the conviction is not sustainable in law and, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5 6. Mr. Afroz Khan, learned State counsel, would submit that the victim (PW-1) has supported the case of the prosecution, which is also supported by the medical evidence proved by Dr. Smt. Manju Tiriki (PW-11) by which sign of sexual intercourse was found vide Ex.P-24 and Ex.P-25 and FSL report (Ex.P-20) also supports the case of the prosecution. As such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The Special Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record has clearly recorded a finding that the victim (PW-1) was less than 18 years of age at the time of incident which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 9. The case of the prosecution is that, first of all, the appellant has assaulted the victim's boy-friend Devendra Verma and thereafter, he taken the victim (PW-1) to the house of Devendra Verma and committed sexual intercourse with 6 her and then again came back along-with the victim to the place where he assaulted Devendra Verma and again assaulted him till his death. Thereafter, the appellant again taken the victim to the nearby place and again committed sexual intercourse and dropped the victim to her house. Thereafter, the victim reported the matter to the police and she was medically examined and thereafter, the wheels of investigation started running. 10. A careful perusal of the statement of the victim (PW-1) would show that the appellant has firstly assaulted Devendra Verma and thereafter, taken the victim to the house of Devendra Verma and opened the lock of Devendra Verma's house and then she had an opportunity to see his face and the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the victim. Then again the appellant came along-with the victim to the place where he had assaulted Devendra Verma and he again assaulted Devendra Verma by iron chappad till his death and threatened the victim to kill and again taken her to Neuardih Talab and committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, he dropped the victim to her house. She has been subjected to lengthy cross- examination, but nothing has been extracted to hold that she was not subjected to sexual intercourse by the 7 appellant. Immediately, on the same day, on 01.04.2017, the victim reported the matter to the police and thereafter, she was medically examined by Dr. Smt. Manju Tirki (PW- 11) vide Ex.P-24 & Ex.P-25, in which hymen was found ruptured and redness was found in the vagina and as per the statement of the Doctor, she was subjected to recent sexual intercourse and nothing has been extracted in the cross-examination to hold that victim was not subjected to sexual intercourse. Furthermore, as per the FSL report (Ex.P-20) in Article C i.e. slide of the victim, stains of human sperm was found. 11. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the statement of the victim (PW-1), medical evidence and forensic evidence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences, which in our considered opinion is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 12. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by 8 preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Ashok Judge Judge