1 2025:CGHC:59950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 398 of 2022 1 - Ramesh Sahu S/o Ganesh Ram Sahu, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Hasaud, P.S. Hasaud, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Hasaud District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent / State : Mr. D.R. Minj, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 10/12/2025 1. Heard. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.12.17 17:23:11 +0530 2 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2021 passed by the Special Judge (FTSC), Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as ‘Special Court) in Special Criminal Case No.30/2021, whereby learned Special Court, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner :- Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 354, IPC RI for 01 year Rs.500/- SI for 03 months 323, IPC RI for 03 months - - 8, POCSO Act RI for 03 years Rs. 1000/- SI for 06 months All the substantive jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.02.2020, at about 2:00 pm, when the minor victim, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, had gone to attend natures call along with her friend, the appellant arrived there and started abusing her using filthy language and threatened to kill her. He then assaulted her with a wooden club. Her friend got scared and ran away. When the victim tried to escape, the appellant caught her from behind, restrained her, and tied both of her hands with a cloth. He told her that he will marry her, why she did not talk to him, she cannot escape from him and without her, he will commit suicide, thereafter, the appellant also kissed her. When the victim refused and told that she will inform her family members, then the appellant cut his both wrists with a blade. When the victim tried to release herself from clutches of appellant, then he cut her left hand by blade by saying that if 3 she will not marry him, then he will disfigure her face. Somehow the victim freed herself and run away towards her house. On the way, she told about the incident to her cousin brother, and after reaching home, she informed her parents. Subsequently, the minor victim lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1) against appellant under Sections 294, 506(B), 323, 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’). During course of investigation, statement under Section 164 of the CrPC (Ex.P-6) of the victim was got recorded from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (for brevity ‘JMFC’). Medical examination of the victim was conducted by Dr. Smt. Shashi Prabha Banjare, who, vide MLC report (Ex. P-13), found red coloured multiple linear abrasions transverse on front portion of right hand of the victim and three other red coloured linear abrasions longitudinal on her right hand caused by hard and rough object. 3.1 Medical examination of appellant was also conducted by Dr. Smt. Shashi Prabha Banjare, who, vide MLC report (Ex.P-15), found red coloured multiple linear abrasions about 12-15 numbers, and 10-12 horizontal and vertical abrasions on right hand of appellant caused by hard and rough object. She also reported that alcoholic smell was coming from appellant’s mouth. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Spot maps (Ex.P-2 & P-3) were prepared by the police and patwari. Wooden club was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-7) from appellant. Dakhil Kharij Register pertaining to victim was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-8). Caste certificate of victim was also seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-18). The appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 294, 506, 323, 354 of the IPC, Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 4 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Atrocities Act’) was filed against the appellant before the Special Court. 4. Learned Special Judge (Atrocity) framed charges under Sections 294, 506(B), 354, 323 of the IPC, Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2) (5-क) of the Atrocities Act against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial. 5. So as to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence claiming innocence and false implication. The appellant has not examined any witness in his defence. 6. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Special Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 294 & 506(B) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5-क) of the Atrocities Act, but convicted him for the offence under Sections 354 & 323 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, which has been assailed by appellant in instant appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per prosecution case, the victim was minor on the date of incident, her date of birth has been proved only on the basis of Dakhil Kharij Register but it has not been proved that on the basis of which document, said date of birth i.e. 24.06.2005 was recorded in school record. He would further submit that the victim herself has admitted in her cross-examination that prior to the incident, she used to talk with appellant which was not liked by her father and brother. She has also admitted that statement has been made by her 5 before the concerned JMFC as per the suggestion of her father and brother. Learned counsel further submitted that what overt act has been done by the appellant upon victim, has not been proved by her in her deposition, therefore, only on the basis of contents of the FIR (Ex.P-1) and statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, the appellant cannot be convicted, as statement of the victim and aforesaid documents are not substantive piece of evidence. He lastly submitted that without any valid evidence, learned Special Court has convicted the appellant, which is perverse to the evidence available on record, hence, he prays that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment and conviction part also. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record along with record of the Special Court with utmost circumspection. 10. The victim has been held minor by the learned Special Court. It has further been held in para 11 of the impugned judgment that on the date of incident, her age was 14 years & 7 months. Victim (PW-1) and her father (PW-2) could not have stated date of birth of victim in their deposition, rather, victim has only stated that her birth year is 2005 and her father has stated that on the date of recording of his deposition i.e. 15.03.2021 age of victim was about 15 years. Dakhil Kharij Register of primary school of victim was allegedly seized from Kunjram Kashyap (PW-3), Headmaster of the Government Primary School, Dhamni Hasoud, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, it has been marked as Ex.P-10 and it was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-8) but original dakhil kharij register is not found on the record 6 of the Special Court. However, as per endorsement on the seizure memo (Ex.P-8), in Dakhil Kharij register, date of birth of victim was recorded as 24.06.2005. The victim herself has also stated that her birth year is 2005. and her father has stated age of victim to be 15 years on the date of his deposition dated 15.03.2021. As such, having considered aforesaid facts, learned Special Court has rightly held that even if one or two year is added on the age of victim, despite that, her age is not found to be 18 years or above, hence, holding victim minor on the date of incident by learned Special Court is affirmed. 11. So far as allegation of molestation and sexual assault upon the victim by the appellant is concerned, victim (PW-1) has only stated that when she had gone to pond, the appellant had molested her. Father (PW-2) of the victim has also stated that when he returned home, he was informed that the victim has been molested by the appellant. But, the victim has not stated specific fact as to how appellant had molested her. She has also proved lodging FIR (Ex.P-1) by her, her medical examination as well as statement (Ex.P-6) recorded before the JMFC. But since she has not stated specific fact regarding alleged molestation, in which manner, it was committed by the appellant, rather, she has only stated vague fact that appellant had molested her, therefore, only on the basis of FIR (Ex.P-1) and her deposition recorded before the JMFC, act of molestation or sexual assault cannot be proved as aforesaid documents are not a substantive piece of evidence, rather, it can be used only for corroboration or contradiction. 12. Dr. Shashi Prabha Banjare (PW-6) had examined victim. Vide MLC report (Ex.P-13), she has found following injuries on the person of victim:- 1. Multiple Linear Abrasions Transverse on front of 7 right hand- (i) 5 cm x ¼ cm on right hand (ii) 5 cm x ¼ cm (iii) 4 cm x ¼ cm Regular, having red colour 2. Multiple Linear Abrasions Longitudinal on right hand - (i) 4 cm x ¼ cm (ii) 3 cm x ¼ cm (iii) 5 cm x ¼ cm Regular, having red colour The doctor opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and rough object and were simple in nature. 13. Medical examination of appellant was also conducted by Dr. Shashi Prabha Banjare (PW-6), who, vide MLC report (Ex.P-15), found following injuries on the person of appellant:- 1. Multiple Linear Abrasions Transverse on right hand- (i) 6 cm x ¼ cm (ii) 5 cm x ¼ cm (iii) 6 cm x ¼ cm (iv) 4 cm x ¼ cm Irregular, having red colour 2. Multiple Linear Abrasions Longitudinal on right hand - (i) 6 cm x ¼ cm (ii) 4 cm x ¼ cm (iii) 5 cm x ¼ cm (iv) 3 cm x ¼ cm Irregular, having red colour The doctor opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and rough object and were simple in nature. She further opined that alcoholic 8 smell was coming from the appellant’s mouth. 14. Thus, from the medical reports of victim and appellant, various superficial linear abrasions were found not only on right hand of victim but linear abrasions were also found on right hand of the appellant. Though victim has stated in her deposition that the appellant cut her hand and also assaulted her but she has admitted suggestion of learned defence counsel that the appellant had not cut her hand, rather she has stated that the appellant had cut his own hand only. She has also not stated that how and in which manner and in which part of her body, the appellant had assaulted. Since she herself had denied that the appellant had cut her hand, therefore, her statement with regard to assault by appellant upon her, is not found to be reliable. 15. As per the FIR (Ex.P-1), friend of victim who went to attend natures call with the victim and her cousin brother are the most relevant witnesses pertaining to instant case but they have not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, only on the vague and baseless statement of victim and her father, it is found proved that the appellant had not assaulted the victim with sexual intention. It is also not found proved that he molested the victim on any count. Despite that, learned Special Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, which is perverse to the evidence available on record. 16. Consequently, the criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2021 passed by the learned Special Court is hereby set aside/quashed. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 17. The appellant is said to be on bail. He needs not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a further 9 period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 18. Record of the concerned Court below along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar