1 2025:CGHC:1444-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2004 of 2019 1 - Vasna Agriya S/o Brijlal Agriya Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Latkonikala, Police Station Pendra, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Division Bench Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (09.01.2025) Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J, 1. This appeal under section 374(2) of CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 26.09.2019 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 05/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 U/s 4 of the POCSOI Act, 2012 read with section 376(3) IPC. (However, in the light of section 42 of the POCSO Act, sentenced only under section 376(3) IPC) : RI for 20 years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I., for six months 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim was studying in Class 8 th. On the incident date i.e., 02.04.2019 at about 2.00 p.m., she went to her friend’s house to ask about the paper. Her friend Vidya’s house was locked, due to which, she was returning from her house. The accused’s house is nearby, where the accused was standing in front of his house. Finding the victim alone, the accused caught her hand and dragged her inside his house and pressed her breasts and after removing her undergarments, made her lie down on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse. The victim has raised her voice, but nobody came to her rescue. The victim came and informed her mother, grandmother and family about the incident and on the same day a report was lodged in the police station Pendra which led to registration of case No. 82/2019 under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and took the case into investigation. The victim was medically examined. During the investigation, the scene of incident was inspected and a map of scene of the incident was prepared in the presence of witnesses. Documents were obtained regarding the age of victim. The victim’s innerwear and vaginal slide were seized and sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur for chemical examination. The statements of victim and witnesses were recorded as narrated by them. The accused was arrested. After completing investigation, charge sheet against the accused was filed. 3. The accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 of CrPC in which the appellant denied the charges 3 and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case because he had dispute with the relative of complainant Dubasia bai. He further contends that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of prosecutrix to be less than 16 years on the date of incident, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained which needs interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel contends that the prosecution case stands supported by the statement of the victim (P.W.1) which further stood firm by the FSL Report, therefore, impugned judgment is well merited which needs no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions and have also perused the records. 7. The prosecutrix (P.W.1) has stated her date of birth as 07.01.2006 and has stated her age as 13 years on the date of statement in the Court on 03.06.2019. She has confirmed the prosecution case and said that when she went to her friend’s (V) house at 02.00 p.m., to ask for papers, her house was locked. When she was returning from there, the appellant saw her alone near his house, caught hold of her hand and dragged her inside his house and committed forcible sexual intercourse. She screamed but no one heard her. Therafter, she returned home and disclosed the incident to her mother (P.W.2) and grandmother (P.W.6). Thereafter, a report was filed in the Police Station as Ex.P-1. The prosecutrix has remained firm on her statement in cross examination. 8. The above statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) has been supported by her mother (P.W.2), father (P.W.3), elder mother (P.W.4), grandmother (P.W.6) etc., and they have stated that the prosecutrix came home and informed them about the incident and then the report was lodged. 9. Dr. Manisha Devangan (P.W.4) has medically examined the prosecutrix 4 (P.W.1) and submitted the report Ex.P-10. According to which, no injury was found on the accused but her hymen was not present, therefore, a definite opinion could not be given regarding forceful sexual intercourse. Dr.Manisha Devangan has said that two cervical slides of the prosecutrix were prepared and handed over to the constable for chemical examination and the underwear of the prosecutrix was also handed over to the constable for examination. According to the investigation report (Ex.P-22) of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur, Semen stains and human sperm were found on both the underwears of prosecutrix and accused as also on the slides prepared by the doctor. Thus the said FSL report also confirms the statement of the prosecutrix. 10. The argument of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated because he had dispute with the relative of the complainant Dubasia Bai. In this regard, the appellant himself has neither made any statement u/s 313 of CrPC nor he has adduced any defence evidence in this regard. The prosecutrix has stated that Dubasia Bai is his aunt. Her mother (P.W.2) has stated that by relation Dubasia Bai happens to be Chachi-Saas (aunt-in-law). The grand-mother (P.W.6) has stated that the boundary wall of Dubasia’s house and the boundary wall of the appellant’s house and that of Rajendra’s house are adjacent to each other. She has also stated that there was a dispute between the appellant and Dubasia Bai during the festival of Holi of that year, but later she says that she does not know Dubasia Bai. During cross examination, the prosecution witnesses have not been given a clear suggestion as to on which matter, the dispute took place between the appellant and Dubasia Bai. The clear facts have not emerged from prosecution evidence that what relation Dubasia Bai had with the prosecutrix. There is no evidence that prosecutrix gave a false statement under the influence of Dubasia Bai. It is also not possible that Dubasia Bai had such a grudge against the appellant and that the appellant was so influenced by her that at the behest of Dubasia Bai, the complainant party got false report lodged against the appellant by putting the existence of the 13-year-old minor girl at stake. In such situation, the 5 basis of the dispute taken by the appellant in defence is neither clear nor is found to be credible. 11. The second important argument of the appellant side is that the prosecuttion has failed to prove that the age of the prosecutrix was less than 16 years on the date of the incident i.e., 02.04.2019. 12. Looking to the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case, it is clear that the prosecutrix herself (P.W.1) has stated her age as 13 years and the date of birth as 07.01.2006. Her mother (P.W.2) and father (P.W.3) have expressed their inability to tell the date of birth of the prosecutrix in their Court statements, but they have stated that the prosecutrix was 13 years old at the time of the incident, which could not be rebutted. The prosecution has seized the Admission & Discharge (Dakhal Kharij) register regarding admission of the prosecutrix in primary school as Ex.P-21/C, according to which, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 07.01.2006. Kamlesh Ratnakar (P.W.12), Assistant Teacher of Primary School Sadakpara, Latkoni, has confirmed the same by presenting the original Dakhal Kharij register. This witness has accepted in cross-examination that it is not mentioned in the register as to who brought the prosecutrix for admission in the school and on whose advise the date of birth has been recorded. He further states that no other document is enclosed regarding DoB. But it is noteworthy that according to the register Ex.P-21-C, the admission of the prosecutrix in the school is shown to have been on 20.06.2011 and the entry in Ex.P-21(C ) also shows that she had passed Class V and left that school. The prosecutrix stood firm and unshaken in her statement that her date of birth is 07.01.2006 and there is no sound reason to disbelieve it because the same date of birth is also recorded in the admission register of her School. It has not come to the light that she has failed in any class and the date of leaving the primary school which is upto Class-V is recorded as 21.03.2016 after passing Class-V because she was admitted on 20.06.2011. In such situation, keeping in view the entire evidence adduced by prosecution, it is found to be proved that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 07.01.2006 and at the 6 time of the incident, her age was less than 16 years. Thus, the conclusion of the trial Court regarding the age of the prosecutrix is not contrary to the evidence available on record. Therefore, there is no need for interference in it. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion of evidence, we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellant beyond doubt. The conclusion drawn by the trial Court is based on clear and cogent evidence led by the prosecution, which cannot be said to be unsustainable. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal warranting interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Rao