1 2025:CGHC:55901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2 of 2022 Girdhar Baghel S/o Shri Chhintaram Baghel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Kurra Awaspara, Thana Bhakhara District Bhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Judgment on Board 17/11/2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (henceforth “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2021 passed by Special Judge POCSO (FTC), District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 12 /2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted & sentenced in following manner :- Conviction Sentences Under Section 363 of IPC R.I. for four years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional R.I. of three 2 months Under Section 366 of IPC R.I. for four years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional R.I. for three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 27.02.2019, PW-5 - brother of the victim (PW-2) /complainant lodged missing report at Police Station Arjuni to the effect that her minor sister (victim/prosecurix), aged about 16 years, on 26.02.2019 at 10 O'colock was missing and could not be found. It is alleged that victim had gone somewhere due to someone's instigation. On the basis of aforesaid missing report, the matter is investigated. During the course of investigation, the victim was recovered at the instance of the present appellant on 21.01.2020 at Raipur. During interrogation, it was revealed that on the pretext of marriage, appellant abducted the victim (PW- 2) and took her to village Kurra and then Raipur and Bangalore and sexually exploited her without her consent right from 26.02.2019 to 21.01.2020 (till his arrest). Based on which, FIR (Ex.P-22) was registered against the appellant for the offence under Sections 363 of the IPC at police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari. Spot map of the incident was prepared by the police as well as Patwari vide Ex. P-7 & Ex. P-11, respectively. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. The victim was medically examined. With respect to age and date of birth of the victim, Dakhil Kharij register has been seized from the Govt. Primary School, Jhiriya vide seizure memo (Ex.P-6) and after retaining its attested true copy (Ex.P-c), same was returned back to the School. School Admission Certificate of victim was also seized vide (Ex.P-8). Mark sheet of class 3rd and progress report of class 6th of victim were also seized vide 3 Article Article A-2 & Article A-3, respectively. The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-15. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act before Special Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtari. 4. The Special Judge (POCSO) (FTC), Dhamtari framed charges under Sections 363, 366 & 376 (2) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the same were read and explained to the appellant, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents in support of his case. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. No defence witness has been examined by the appellant in his defence. 6. After completion of trial, learned Special Judge vide its impugned judgment dated 14.12.2021 acquitted the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, however, convicted him for the offence under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and sentenced him, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 8. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as regards conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that in instant case appellant has remained in jail during trial right from his date of arrest, till date of judgment passed by 4 Special Court i.e. from 21.01.2020 to 14.12.2021 and, thereafter, he was released on bail after order of suspension passed by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2022, thus, he remained in jail for 1 year, 11 months & 23 days hence, interest of justice would be served if the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He submits that fine amount, as ordered by the trial Court, has already been deposited by the appellant. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction, as also the sentence part of the judgment. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including record of Court below with utmost circumspection. 11. Though, counsel for the appellant does not want to press this appeal on conviction part of the impugned judgment, but from the perusal of deposition of victim (PW-2), her sister (PW-5) and her brother (PW-6) and recovery memo (Ex.P-1), by which the victim was recovered at the instance of the present appellant on 21.01.2020 at Raipur, it is found that conviction of appellant under Section 363 & 366 of the IPC is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, hence, conviction of appellant for the aforesaid offences is hereby affirmed. 12. 12. So far as sentence part is concerned, appellant has remained in jail during trial i.e. right from his date of arrest, till date of judgment passed by Special Judge i.e. from 21.01.2020 to 14.12.2021 and, thereafter, he was released on bail after order of suspension passed by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2022, thus, he remained in jail for 1 year, 11 months & 23 days. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be served if jail sentence is awarded to appellant for the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year, 11 months & 23 days. 5 13. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant is maintained, as also imposition of punishment of fine is also maintained but jail sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year, 11 months & 23 days. 14. Appellant is reported to be on bail. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained in Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 15. Record of the Special Court be returned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.12.11 10:58:19 +0530