1 / 10 2025:CGHC:58385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1500 of 2025 Akhilesh Thakur S/o Rajdev Thakur Aged About 29 Years R/o Village - Ghaghra, Police Station - Babhani, District - Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Basantpur District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 02/12/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 415 (2) of the BNSS is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA 2 / 10 sentence dated 27/06/2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO Act), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No.61/2023 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code Fine amount of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine One week Simple Imprisonment. Under Section 506 Part (2) of Indian Penal Code R.I. for 01 Year and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine further Rigrous Imprisonment for 01 month. Under Section 4 (1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. R.I. for 10 Years and fine of Rs.15,000/- in default of payment of fine further Rigrous Imprisonment for 06 Months. All the sentences to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 08.05.2023, the father of the victim gave a written complaint (Ex.P. 4) in the Basantpur police station to the effect that on 06.05.2023, his minor daughter/victim had told her mother and aunt that on 06.04.2023, during Chaitra Navratri, at 4:30 pm, when she was returning home from school, in the forest of Sahya, Mainpatra, the accused Akhilesh Thakur forcibly stopped her and raped her. Due to fear of public shame, she did not disclose the said incident to anyone. On being informed by the victim's mother/wife, he went to Basantpur police station and lodged a report of the incident. 3 / 10 4. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint of the father of the victim, Sub-Inspector Shri R.N. Patel (PW-7) of Basantpur Police Station registered a First Information Report (EX.P/5) against the accused Akhilesh Thakur under Crime No. 61/2023 under Sections 376, 341, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67 (A) of the Information Technology Act. 5. During the investigation of the case, Inspector R.N. Patel (PW-7) inspected the spot as per the statement of the victim and her mother and prepared a site map (Exhibit P-1). The statement of the victim was recorded by a lady police officer. The investigating officer took the consent of the victim and her parents for medical examination and got the private parts of the victim examined at CHC Wadrafnagar. Lady doctor Dr. Kamini Rai (PW4) examined the private parts of the victim and gave a report vide Ex.P.8. 6. In order to obtain information about the date of birth of the victim, the investigating officer seized the attested copy of the Dakhil Kharij Register Ex.P. 11-C from the Headmaster in charge of the victim's primary school, PW 5, in front of the witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P. 10. The victim's date of birth is mentioned in the said document as 07.10.2006. The victim's underwear was seized in a sealed condition in front of the witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P. 2. On the victim producing two copies of her nude photographs, it was seized in front of the witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P. 3. The statements of the victim's 4 / 10 father, the victim's mother, the victim's uncle, the victim's aunt and uncle were recorded. 7. The investigating officer got the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 183 of the BNSS from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadrafnagar. The accused was arrested in the presence of witnesses by SDOP Shri B.L. Singh, PW-8. The accused was sent to CHC Wadrafnagar for sexual fitness test and his sexual fitness test report was presented in this court. Thereafter, all the legal procedures related to the investigation were completed by the Basantpur police station. After completing the formalities, a charge sheet was filed against the accused in this Court under sections 341, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) and section 67 of the AIT Act. 8. On the basis of the charge sheet presented in the case, accused Akhilesh Thakur prima facie appeared to have committed an offence under sections 341, 376 (2) (d), 506 Part-II, Indian Penal Code, section 5 (l)/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and section 67 AIT Act, and when the said charge was framed against accused Akhilesh Thakur and read out to him, the accused refused to accept the said framed charge and claimed trial. 9. The prosecution in support of its case has examined victim-A (PW1), father of the victim-B (PW2), Dr. Arendra Patel (PW3), Dr. Kamini Rai 5 / 10 (PW4), In-charge Head Master (PW5), uncle of the victim D (PW-6), Sub Inspector R.N. Patel (PW-7), SDOP (PW-8), and the mother of the victim C (PW-9) and exhibited 14 documents in support of its case. 10. On the basis of the prosecution evidence presented in the case, when the accused was examined in the form of a questionnaire under Section 351 of the BNSS, in his examination he expressed his innocence and declared that he was falsely implicated and offered to give evidence in his defence, but the accused did not produce any witness in his defence. 11. The learned trial Court after completion of trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this Judgment. Hence this appeal. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no eye-witness to the present incident. He would next contend that there is delay of 01 month and 03 days in lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation has been given with regard to such delay. He would next contend that the prosecution has not produced any document with regard to the age of the appellant in order to prove that the prosecutrix was minor. He would next contend that the father of the prosecutrix had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the appellant and when the said amount was demanded this false and fabricated report has been lodged. He would next contend that there is contradiction and omission in the statements of 6 / 10 the prosecution witnesses. He would lastly contend that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court requires interference by this Court and the appellant may be acquitted from the charges leveled against him and he may be released. 13. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the order of the Court below is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence with utmost circumspection. 15. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, examined as PW-1. She has categorically deposed that on 06.04.2023 at about 4.00–4.30 PM, while she was returning from school, she reached near the forest area where the accused was already present. The accused restrained her, caught hold of her hand, dragged her beneath a tree and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her after threatening her with dire consequences in case she raised alarm. PW-1 has further stated that due to fear and shame she did not immediately disclose the incident to anyone. She has also stated that subsequently the accused came to her house in the absence of family members, took her obscene photographs, pressurised her to marry him and, upon her refusal, circulated those photographs through WhatsApp to her relatives, including her uncle. 16. The testimony of PW-1 is consistent with her previous statement and the 7 / 10 narration of events made by her throughout the trial. Despite detailed cross-examination, nothing material has been elicited so as to discredit her version. Her evidence appears natural, cogent and inspires confidence. There is no reason discernible from the record for false implication. 17. The father of the prosecutrix has been examined as PW-2. He has stated that after the prosecutrix complained of uneasiness, on enquiry she disclosed that she had been subjected to sexual assault by the accused while returning from school. Thereafter, PW-2 took the prosecutrix to Police Station Basantpur and lodged the report against the accused. His testimony corroborates the version of the prosecutrix with regard to disclosure of the incident and lodging of the FIR. 18. The mother of the prosecutrix has been examined as PW-9. She has stated that the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her after returning from school. She further deposed that she informed her husband about the incident, after which the prosecutrix was taken to the police station and report was lodged. PW-9 has also proved the preparation of the spot map by the police in her presence, which has been exhibited as Ex. P-1. Her evidence lends further assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix and explains the conduct of the family in approaching the police. 19. The medical evidence has been proved by PW-4, Dr. Kamini Rai, who examined the prosecutrix. She has deposed that the prosecutrix was produced for medical examination on 08.05.2023. As per her testimony 8 / 10 and medical report, the prosecutrix was physically and mentally healthy, secondary sexual characteristics were developed, no external injuries were found on the body and no injury was found on the private parts. The pregnancy test was negative. PW-4 has not ruled out the possibility of sexual assault. The medical examination report has been duly proved during trial. 20. The prosecution has also examined the investigating officer and other formal witnesses, who have proved the steps taken during investigation, including preparation of the spot map, recording of statements and filing of the charge-sheet. No material contradiction or infirmity has been brought out in their cross-examination. 21. The defence has taken a plea of false implication. It has been suggested that there was delay in lodging the FIR, that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case and that the place of incident was a public pathway. The defence has also attempted to suggest that the prosecutrix was major and that the incident did not occur in the manner alleged. However, the defence has not led any evidence in support of its plea. The suggestions made in cross-examination are bald and remain unsubstantiated. 22. After appreciating the material available on record in its entirety, this Court finds that the testimony of PW-1 (prosecutrix) is trustworthy, consistent and inspires confidence. Her version stands duly corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 (father) and PW-9 (mother) as regards 9 / 10 disclosure of the incident and lodging of the report. The delay in reporting the incident stands satisfactorily explained. It is evident from the record that the incident is stated to have occurred on 06.04.2023, whereas the report was lodged after a lapse of about one month and, consequently, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted on 08.05.2023. The delay in lodging the report as well as in conducting the medical examination stands satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix and her parents, who have stated that the prosecutrix remained silent due to fear, shame and threats extended by the accused. The time gap between the incident and the medical examination sufficiently explains the absence of any external or internal injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. It is well settled that in cases of sexual assault, particularly involving a minor victim, delay in reporting the matter and delayed medical examination are not unnatural and do not, by themselves, discredit the prosecution case. In the present case, the medical evidence does not negate the ocular testimony of the prosecutrix and the absence of injuries is a natural consequence of the delay rather than a circumstance creating doubt. Therefore, the medical evidence of PW-4 does not negate the prosecution case, as absence of injuries is not fatal when the ocular testimony of the prosecutrix is reliable and convincing. 23. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the defence has failed to bring on record any material to discredit the said evidence or to create 10 / 10 any reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the conviction and sentenced as awarded by the trial Court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 24. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 25. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 26. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu