1 2026:CGHC:1636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1926 of 2019 • Vinay Yadav @ Pangul S/o Birbal Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Dawansara, Police Station Jhilmili, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Polilce Station Ajak Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate CRA No. 1935 of 2019 • Hirachand Panika S/o Premsai Panika Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Dhawansara , P.S. Jhilmili District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant MADHURIMA THAKUR Digitally signed by MADHURIMA THAKUR Date: 2026.01.15 11:08:09 +0530 2 Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ajk Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate Division Bench Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board (12.01.2026) Arvind Kumar Verma, J. 1. Since these two appeals have arisen out of the common impugned judgment dated 27.11.2019 passed in Special Case No. 34/2018 by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Surajpur District- Surajpur (C.G.), they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2019 passed in Special Case No. 34/2018 by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Surajpur District- 3 Surajpur (C.G.) by which the appellants herein has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction of appellant- Vinay Yadav @ Pangul: Conviction Sentence u/s 363/109 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 100/- Conviction of appellant- Hirachand Panika Conviction Sentence u/s 363 of IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 100/- & in default of payment of fine, further RI for 1 month. u/s 366 of IPC RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 100/- & in default of payment of fine, further RI for 1 month. u/s 376(2) of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- & in default of payment of fine, further RI for 1 month. u/s 6 of POCSO Act Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- & in default of payment of fine, further RI for 1 month. u/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- & in default of payment of fine, further RI for 1 month. Prosecution story: 3. The case projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that the mother of the victim lodged a written complaint vide Ex. P/01 at Police Station Bhatgaon stating that her minor daughter (whose date of birth is 08.08.2003) was missing from the house on the night of 18.05.2018 at about 3:00 a.m. On 4 searching the surroundings and among relatives, she could not be found, and cash amounting to 50,000/- was also missing. On ₹ inquiry, suspicion arose that the accused Hirachand Panika had enticed and taken away the minor girl. On the basis of the report, an FIR was registered against the accused- Hirachand Panika vide Ex. P/2. During investigation, it was revealed that the accused Vinay Yadav @ Pangul had also assisted in the abduction. The victim was recovered at the instance of accused Heera Chand Panika, recovery panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P/6, and the victim was handed over to her mother on supurdnama vide Ex. P/04. Medical examination of the victim was conducted vide Ex. P/11 and P/11-A. Consent of the victim and her mother was obtained for medical examination vide Ex. P/09. Appellant- Vinay Yadav @ Pangul was arrested vide Ex. P/13 and Appellant- Hirachand Panika was arrested vide Ex. P/14 and the information to the family members of both the accused were given vide Ex. P/15. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate (Ex. P/08). As per the caste certificate (Article B-), victim belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Victim was medically examined by Dr. Seema Gupta (PW-6) who prepared the victim’s medical report vide Ex. P/11 & P/11-A). In the victim’s report (Ex. P/11) no external injury was found over the body of the victim, however, it was opined by doctor (PW-6), recently sexual intercourse was done with the victim and with regard to age determination the doctor referred for 5 ossification test. As per Dakhil-Kharij Register (Article A/1-C), victim’s date of birth is 08.08.2003, meaning thereby, at the time of incident age of the victim was around 15 years. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur, vide Ex. P/21 and the report was received during investigation vide Ex. P/23 in which stains of semen and human sperm were found on the articles A, B and C seized. 4. After due investigation, appellants herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants/accuseds abjured their guilt and entered into defence. 5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents and defence in support of its case has examined 1 witness and exhibited 1 document. 6. The learned Special Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission:- 7. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant- Vinay Yadav @ Pangul would submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that the 6 Trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363/109 of IPC, as there is no evidence that the appellant has committed the said alleged offence. He would further submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of the victim which was recorded by the JMFC, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) vide Ex. P/8, in which the victim has no where stated that the appellant took her and the other co-accused Hirachand on a motorcycle to the railway station. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 363/109 of IPC. 8. Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant- Hirachand Panika would submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that the Trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, as there is no evidence that the appellant has committed the said alleged offence knowing fully well the caste identity of the victim. He would further submit that the charges framed by the Trial Court would show that there is no charge framed that the appellant was knowing the fact that the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) fo the SC/ST Act. He would also submit that the age of the victim has not been proved to be less than 18 years on the date and time of offence as it is evident from the statement of Smt. Usha Kumari 7 Sah (PW-11), Head mistress, that she is not the author of Dakhil- kharij Register and she also does not know on what basis the entry was made. He would further submit that the victim (Pw-2) was a consenting party and her statement is not of “sterling quality” in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Sandeep alias Deepu V. State (NCT of Delhi) 1 followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar V. The State of Bihar 2 . Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principles of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State Counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to prove the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He would also submit that in the medical report (Ex. P/11 & P/11-A) has supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records meticulously. 1(2012) 8 SCC 21 2(2020) 3 SCC 443 8 Discussion and Analysis:- 11. Age of the victim: The trial Court has held the age of the victim was less than 16 years at the time of offence relying upon the dakhil kharij register (Article A/1-C) proved by Smt. Usha Kumari Sah (PW-11). However, Smt. Usha Kumari Sah (PW-11) has not supported the dakhil kharij register (Article A/1-C) as in the cross- examination she has categorically stated that she has not made any entry in the register and she does not know on what basis such entry was made. Also, it does not carry signature of the head master who has made the entries and moreover, it carries over- writing at the place where the date of admission in the school is written. As such, the dakhil kharij register (Article A/1-C) is of no use to the prosecution. Furthermore, though the victim had undergone for ossification test vide Ex.P/20, but the ossification report has not been brought on record by the prosecution. As such, the trial Court has wrongly held that the age of the victim was less than 16 years on the date and time of offence to base the conviction of the appellants and we hereby set-aside the finding of the Special Court that the victim was less than 16 years of age on the date and time of offence. 12. Medical Evidence: The victim (PW-02) was medically examined by Dr. Seema Gupta (PW-06), who prepared the medical report of the victim vide Ex. P/11 in which though it was opined by doctor (PW-06), sexual intercourse was done with the victim, but no external injuries were found over the body of the victim and it 9 is the case of the defence that the victim was the consenting party. 13. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim had allegedly been kidnapped by the appellant- Hirachand Panika on 18.05.2018 and she was recovered on 26.05.2018. Victim (PW-2) in her Court’s statement has stated that the appellant- Hirachand Panika took her to Bhatgaon bus stand on foot where the appellant- Vinay Yadav was already present with his motorcycle who took them to Manendragarh Railway Station where the appellant- Hirachand and the victim boarded on a train to Anuppur then they went from Annuppur to Bhopal via trian then from Bhopal to Delhi via trian. They lived in a rented house in Delhi for about 3 days where the appellant- Hirachand Panika established physical relation with her. After three days, she called her mother and inquired whether her mother has lodged a report against the appellant-Hirachand Panika upon which her mother replied that till date she has not lodged a report. After 3 days she along with the appellant- Hirachand returned to accused Hirachand's home in village Devansara from where the police arrested the accused. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discrepancies in the statement of the victim (PW-2), we are of the considered opinion that statement of the victim is not of “sterling quality” and she is not a “sterling witness” in light of the decision o the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar (supra), and 10 therefore, it would be unsafe to base the conviction fo the appellant on the basis of the statement of the victim (PW-2). 14. Accordingly, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence as we have already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs the statement of the victim (PW-2) is not of “sterling quality” as she fails to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. Further, the medical evidence is of no use, to the prosecution as it is the case of the defence that the victim was the consenting party and also the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was minor at the relevant time of offence. As, the present is a case where the victim is a consenting party and since no offence is made out under Section 376(2) of the IPC, offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 would also not be attracted. As such, it would be absolutely unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant for offences in question, and, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. Conclusion:- 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Special Court convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences in question, is hereby set aside and the appellants are entitled for acquittal on the basis of principle of benefit of doubt. Since the appellants are stated to be on bail, they need not surrender. However, their bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of 11 six months as per provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 16. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE JUDGE Madhurima