1 2026:CGHC:1257 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 514 of 2005 Rambharosh Singh @ Thuna, aged about 21 years, S/o Bisahu Singh Gond, Caste- Gond, R/o. Village Ajirma, P.S. Jainagar, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pratik Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 08/01/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth, Cr.P.C.) challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.5.2005 passed by 3rd Upper Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja (F.T.C.) (for brevity “trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 60/2005, whereby the learned trial Court, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of IPC : RI for three years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, to undergo additional RI for six 2 months. Under Section 366 IPC : RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, to undergo additional RI for six months. Under Section 376 IPC : R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellant / accused and the victim were residents of nearby places of Ambikapur. On 23.10.2004, when minor victim (PW-1) had gone to see Dashhara procession, then the appellant, on pretext of marriage, abducted her with the help of co-accused Mani Yadav and kept her with him till 5.1.2005 at various places. In between, appellant/accused repeatedly sexually exploited her and when appellant had kept her in village Patthalgaon, then police recovered her from the possession of the appellants. Thereafter, minor victim (PW-1) lodged FIR (Ex.P-1) against the appellant and co-accused – Mani Yadav for the offence punishable under Sections 363,366, 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Sarguja. Victim (PW-1) was medically examined by Dr. Sarita Singh, Medical Officer, in which, vide MLC report Ex.P-16 she opined victim was habitual to sexual intercourse, therefore, no definite opinion can be given with regard to recent sexual intercourse with her. She collected vaginal slides of victim and handed over the same to concerned Constable with suggestion of her X-ray for determination of her age. Medical report of appellant/accused was “positive”. Underwear of victim 3 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-2. Dakhil Kharij register pertaining to the victim was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-3. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Slides of victim was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-11. Underwear of the appellant was also seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.P-12. One Hero-Honda passion motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-13. Both the accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC has been filed against both the accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, who, in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, thereafter, the case was transferred to the Third Upper Sessions Judge, Ambikaur, Sarguja (FTC), who tried the case. 3. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 363, 366 & 376 of the IPC against the present appellant and framed charges under Section 366 & 376 read with Section 109 IPC against co-accused Mani Lal Yadav, who abjured their guilt and entered into trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant/accused, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution and pleaded their innocence and false implication in crime in question. The appellants have not examined any witness in their defence. 5. After considering evidence adduced by prosecution, learned Sessions Judge vide its impugned judgment dated 19th May, 2005 has acquitted co- accused Manilal Yadav for the alleged offences but convicted the present appellant for the offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the IPC and 4 sentenced him, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment, which has been assailed by him in the instant appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant /accused would submit that learned Sessions Judge has held victim minor at the time of incident, but to substantiate this fact, no cogent evidence has been adduced by prosecution. It is submitted that Dakhil Kharij Register pertaining to the victim, which was allegedly seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-3), has also not been proved. Certificate Article ‘A’ issued by Vishnupal Kashyap, Principal (PW-3), Govt. High School, Ajabnagar, Police Station Jainagar, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) also has not been proved by calling Dakhil Kharij register. Even after suggesting ossification test of victim by Dr. Sarita Singh (PW-7), Medical Officer, no such test was conducted, on the other hand, when missing report (Ex.P-5) of victim was lodged by her mother (PW-2), she herself has admitted in that report that she had stated age of victim as 17 years. Thus, without any lawful evidence, learned Sessions Judge has held victim minor i.e. below 18 years of age. He further submits that it is a case of love affair, which victim (PW-1) herself has admitted in paragraph 13 of her cross-examination, due to which, she had accompanied the appellant /accused and made physical relation with him with her consent and free will. He lastly submits that without any cogent evidence, the appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgment, which is completely perverse to the evidence available on record, hence, he prays that appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court and appellant may be acquitted of the alleged charges. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the impugned judgment is based on well appreciation of the evidence, which does not require any interference in this appeal. 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record of trial Court with utmost circumspection. 9. Learned Sessions Judge has held victim minor below 18 years in paragraph 10 of its impugned judgment, but in absence of any conclusive proof, learned trial Court itself has held that at the time of incident, age of victim near about 15-16 years. Thus, finding of trial court itself is not conclusive. 10. Victim (PW-1) has stated in paragraph 13 of her cross-examination that her date of birth is 10.8.1990. Her mother (PW-2), who is illiterate lady, has also stated that in the year 2005, when her statement was recorded, age of victim was 14 years, but she has not specifically stated date of birth of victim. She has stated in paragraph 7 of her cross-examination that she does not know date of birth of any of her child. In paragraph 8 of her cross- examination, she herself has admitted that when she had lodged missing report (Ex.P-5), at that time, she has stated age of victim to be 17 years. 11. Dakhil kharij register pertaining to the victim was allegedly seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-3), but that dakhil kharij register has not been proved. Certificate Article ‘A’ issued by Vishnupal Kashyap, Principal (PW-3) of Govt. High School, Ajabnagar, Police Station Jainagar, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.), but he himself has admitted that victim had got admission in class 9th in his School and age was mentioned in school record as per her certificate of class 8th. Thus, it has not been proved by prosecution that said date of birth of victim i.e. 10.10.1990 was mentioned in the school record, on the basis of which document. 6 12. Dr. Sarita Singh (PW-7), who conducted medical examination of victim, has suggested in MLC report (Ex.P-16) for her ossification test, but such test of victim was not got done by the Investigating Officer. 13. Thus, there is no valid evidence on record to prove that the victim was a minor on the day of the incident, as adduced by the prosecution, despite that learned Sessions Judge has held victim minor i.e. below 18 years of age on the basis of baseless and unlawful evidence. Hence, aforesaid finding recorded by Upper Sessions Judge is found to be perverse and illegal. 14. Victim (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that on the date of incident, when she had gone to see Dashhara procession, at that time, appellant abducted her on the pretext of love affair & marriage, and took her to village Pathalgaon and appellant had kept her for about 2 months there. She has further stated that in between, appellant had repeatedly sexually exploited her. She has admitted in paragraph 13 of her cross-examination that since 2002 she fell in love affair with the appellant. She has also admitted that she had gone to see Dashhara procession alongwith her brother, but when she went with the appellant, she had not told to her brother aforesaid fact show that because of love affair prior to about two years from the date of instant incident, she herself had joined company of appellant and with her free will and consent, she involved physical relation with the appellant. 15. Since, it has not been proved by the prosecution that victim was minor on the date of incident, therefore, appellant cannot be convicted for the said offences, despite that learned Upper Sessions Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offences, which is perverse to the evidence available on record, hence, it is not found to be sustainable. 7 16. Consequently, the criminal appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order sentence passed by Third Upper Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja in Sessions Case No. 60/2005 against the appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the IPC is set aside. The appellant / accused is acquitted of the said charge. 17. The appellant / accused is reported to be on bail. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions contained in Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 18. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith original record be returned to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information & necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge. amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.01.15 12:01:36 +0530