1 / 6 2025:CGHC:6694 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 257 of 2025 1 - Shahil Yadav S/o Kishor Yadav Aged About 18 Years R/o Tulsinagar Korba Pusake C.S.E.B., Thana- Civil Line, Rampur Korba, Distt.- Korba, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Out Post- Manikpur, Thana- Kotwali, Distt. Korba, C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 29/01/2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, District Korba, C.G. in S.T. No.81/2024 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 R.I. for Three Years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine Six months additional R.I. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.03.05 15:17:21 +0530 2 / 6 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix on 03.06.2024 filed a written complaint at the police station and lodged a First Information Report that on 02.06.2024 at around 9:00 pm, Krishna Sidar (Dau) and Shahil came on a motorcycle near Sharda Vihar gate and forcibly made the prosecutrix sit on the motorcycle and took her to the deserted jungle of Mudapar helipad and abused her mother and sister and threatened to kill her and beat her with hands, fists and belt. After that, accused Krishna Sidar forcibly had physical relations with the prosecutrix. Next day of the said incident, the accused went to the residence of the prosecutrix and tried to force himself upon her, threatened to kill her, snatched her mobile sim and broke it and also assaulted her. On the basis of the written report of the complainant, Dehati Nalisi and a first information report were registered and the case was taken into investigation. During the investigation, the written consent of the complainant was obtained for physical examination and the physical examination of the complainant was conducted on 03.06.2024. The physical examination of the accused Krishna Sidar was conducted on 04.06.2024. The motorcycle used in the incident was seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of witnesses and the accused Krishna Sidar and Shahil Yadav were duly arrested and sent to judicial custody. The exhibits seized in the case were deposited at FSL Bilaspur for examination. After completion of investigation proceedings and the accused being found guilty under sections 294, 506, 323, 427, 376, 34 IPC, charge sheet was filed. 4. The appellant abjured his guilt during trial and claimed to be tried. The 3 / 6 prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and there is contradiction and omission in the statement of the prosecutrix given under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. He would next contend that even the alleged incident has not taken place and the appellant has been implicated only on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix. He would lastly contend that the order of the trial Court requires interference by this Court and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges and he may be released on bail. 6. 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence with utmost circumspection. 8. The prosecutrix in this case has been examined as PW-1. She has stated that she identifies the accused and she further stated that on 02.06.2024 at about 09:00 pm when she was near Sharda Vihar gate, at that time, accused Krishna Sidar and Shahil came on a bike and asked her to sit in the motorcycle and when she did not sit, accused Krishna forcibly made her to sit in the bike and both the accused took the her to a deserted 4 / 6 helipad forest, where accused Krishna beat the prosecutrix with hands, fists and belt and forcibly committed rape with her. The prosecutrix further stated that she did not file a report due to fear at night. The prosecutrix also stated that on the next day accused Krishna and Shahil came to her house, where accused Krishna again assaulted her and broke her mobile phone. The prosecutrix (PW-1) further stated that on the basis of the written complaint Ex.P-1 submitted by her against the accused at the Manikpur police post, First Information Report was registered and after obtaining her consent her physical examination was conducted and a map of the place of incident (P-4) was prepared. 9. Female Head Constable Smita Baig (PW-7) also stated that on 03.06.2024, on the written complaint of the prosecutrix, at 20:30, a Dehati Nalisi was lodged against the accused Krishna Sidar alias Daau and Shahil under Sections 294, 506, 323, 427, 376, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Assistant Sub Inspector Ashwani Verma (PW-3) on 04.06.2024, when constable number 473 Hitesh Rao of the Manikpur Police Outpost brought an unnumbered complaint, on the basis of the said Dehati Nalisi, a case was registered at Kotwali Police Station Crime No. 320/2024 under Sections 294, 506, 323, 427, 376, 34 IPC. 10. Ananya Shrivastava (PW-10), the lady doctor who examined the prosecutrix, stated that on 03.06.2024, from the police post ManikpurWhen the complainant was brought before her for medical examination by lady constable number Uma Shyam, she found that the complainant was showing signs of physical assault. The complainant 5 / 6 was beaten with a belt. There were marks of belt beating on the body of the complainant. There were injuries on two places on the body of the complainant as follows:- (1) The prosecutrix had a blood clot in her right thigh measuring 4 x 1 cm. (2) There was a blood clot in the back of the left hip of the body of the prosecutrix measuring 1x1 cm. 11. Assistant Sub Inspector Sudama Prasad Patle (PW-9) has stated that on 03.06.2024, after medical examination of the prosecutrix, the lady constable brought the vaginal slide of the prosecutrix and a sealed packet for FSL examination and then he prepared seizure memo Ex.P-7 in front of witnesses. He also stated that on 04.06.2024, during investigation of crime number 320/2024 of outpost Manikpur police station Kotwali, he visited the spot as per the information given by the prosecutrix and after inspection he prepared the site map Ex.P-4. 12. The learned trial Court after appreciating the over all material and evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the present appellant committed any sexual intercourse with her and the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant from the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. 13. Therefore, considering the nature of offence and the evidence adduced by the witnesses, the finding of conviction recorded by Trial Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records. Looking to the entire evidence 6 / 6 adduced by the prosecution, in my considered view, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence i.e. under Section 366/34 of the IPC. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court. Thus, conviction of appellant under Section 366/34 IPC is affirmed. 14. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that the appellant is the first offender and there is no previous antecedents to the credit of the present appellant and the appellant has already undergone 07 months of substantive sentence imposed by trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 03 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellant is reduced from RI for 03 years to RI for 01 year. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant under Section 366/34 of the IPC, the sentence imposed upon him by trial Court under the aforesaid section is reduced from RI for 03 years to RI 01 year. However, sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu