1 2026:CGHC:5409-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 350 of 2024 Besahu Lal Yadav S/o Ramkishor Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Jaipur, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh (M.P.) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Janakpur, District Korea (C.G.) Present District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (M.C.B.) (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Complainant/Objector : Mr. Udho Ram Koshley, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31/01/2026 1 Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent as well as Mr. Udho Ram Koshley, learned counsel for the complainant/objector. 2 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2024 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 2 79/2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Manendragarh, District Koriya, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Default Jail Sentence 341 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) 1 month simple imprisonment Rs. 100/- 7 days simple imprisonment. 354 of the IPC 2 years rigorous imprisonment Rs. 500/- Rigorous imprisonment for one month. 376(3) of the IPC Imprisonment for life which shall mean remainder of natural life. Rs. 500/- Rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3 The appellant/convict was charged alleging that on 06.07.2021, at the place under the Semar tree near Uchehra Pulia, Bharatpur Police Station Janakpur, by blocking the way of the victim and causing wrongful obstruction, he used criminal force on the victim with the intention of outraging her modesty and by having sexual intercourse with the victim (whose age was less than 16 years at the time of the incident) he committed rape and penetrative sexual assault, thereby committing the offence punishable under sections 341, 354, 376, 376(3) of the IPC and section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act). 4 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.07.2021, at approximately 5:00 p.m., the victim had gone to her uncle's house to attend a wedding. She was returning home alone when, at approximately 7:00 p.m., the appellant encountered her on the way. With the intention of humiliating 3 her, he grabbed her by the arm and pulled her under a Semar tree near a culvert and forcibly raped her, causing her to lose consciousness. When she regained consciousness 20 minutes later, the appellant fled. Based on the victim's father's written complaint (Exhibit P/6), the Janakpur Police Station registered a First Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit P/7) under Sections 341, 354, and 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under the aforementioned Sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act, before the trial Court concerned. 5 When the charges under Sections 341, 354, 376, and 376 (3) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act were read out to the appellant, he abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 6 In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely the mother of the victim (PW-1), the victim (PW-2), father of the victim (PW-3), Chanda (PW-4), Mithailal Baiga (PW-5), Dr. Marisha Singh (PW-6), Rukmani Banjare (PW-7), J.L.Gayakwad (PW- 8), Sunil Tirki (PW-9) and Kripashankar Paikra (PW-10) and exhibited as many as 28 Exhibits. 7 The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the appellant expressed his ignorance to most of the questions and some of them were denied as well. He stated that he was falsely implicated and that he should be acquitted. 8 The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 4 9 Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and there are omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. There is no eye witness to the incident. All the witnesses are interested witness and as such, the conviction cannot be based upon their testimonies. Even the victim had deposed before the learned trial Court in her cross examination that the appellant had not committed any act with her but when the Court asked her specifically, she stated that the appellant had committed rape upon her. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 574/2022, the victim was again cross examined in which she has clearly deposed that the appellant did not commit any act against the her and as such, her testimony cannot be relied on to sustain the conviction. Even the written complaint allegedly made by the father of the victim was not written by the father but it was merely signed by the father of the victim. The Incharge Head Master admitted in his cross examination that he was not aware as to on what basis the age of the victim was recorded in the admission/discharge register and as such, the age of the victim has not been conclusively proved to be minor. Further, no external injuries were found on the body of the victim and there is no definite opinion of the Doctor with regard to commission of rape. In such facts and circumstances, the appellant deserves to be acquitted granting him the benefit of doubt. 10 On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the appellant has committed a heinous crime of rape against a minor girl aged about 13 years and 11 months. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on cogent and sound reasons and the same does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5 11 Mr. Udho Ram Koshley, learned counsel appearing for the objector/ complainant has not made any submissions either in support or against the victim or the prosecution. 12 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13 With respect to determination of the age of the victim, Inspector J.L.Gaikwad (PW-8) has stated in his examination-in-chief that notice (Exhibit P/11) was given to the Headmaster (PW-5) to produce a certified copy of the admission/discharge register relating to the victim. On production by the Headmaster, the certified copy of the admission/discharge register was seized by the police vide Exhibit P/12. The In-charge Headmaster Mithailal Baiga (PW-5) stated in his examination-in-chief that upon his production, the police seized a certified copy of the Dakhil Kharij Register as per seizure memo (Exhibit P/12). This witness also stated that the victim's details are recorded on serial number 237 of the Dakhil Kharij Register, which mentions the victim's date of birth as 17.07.2007. This witness also stated in his examination-in-chief that a certificate (Exhibit P/14) regarding the victim's date of birth had been issued. In paragraph 2 of his cross-examination, this witness rejected the defense's suggestion that the victim's date of birth was recorded by guesswork. The incident in this case is stated to have occurred on 06.07.2021. The documents presented by the prosecution regarding the victim's date of birth remained intact during the evidence, which shows no reason to disbelieve the documents presented on the point of date of birth. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly 6 arrived at a finding that on the date of incident, the age of the victim was 13 years and 11 months. We hereby afÏrm the said finding. 14 With regard to commission of the offence by the appellant/convict, the victim (PW-2) has stated in her examination-in-chief that on the date of the incident, she had gone to her uncle's house for a wedding with her mother. She was returning home alone at around 7 p.m. when she met the appellant on the way, he molested her and committed a wrong act. The victim has also stated in her examination-in-chief that he forced himself on her due to which she became unconscious. Later, after returning home, she told her parents about the incident. The victim has also stated that she was taken to the hospital for treatment and was medically examined. She has also stated regarding giving a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in the Magistrate Court. In paragraph 2 of her cross-examination, the victim has accepted the suggestion of the defense that the appellant had not done any wrong to her, had not molested or forced her, but when the learned trial Court questioned and sought clarity with respect to her statement, the victim stated that what she had said in the examination-in-chief, i.e. , that the accused had done any wrong to her, had molested and forced her, is correct. Further, when the victim was again cross examined pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 574/2022, the victim again after about 7 months of her statement, has denied occurrence of the incident. 15 The mother of the victim (PW-1) has stated in her examination-in-chief that the victim was returning after watching a wedding function when the boy did something to her, but that has been resolved. The witness has also stated in her examination-in-chief that the victim had undergone a medical examination and she had given her consent for the examination 7 of her private parts. On being suggested by the prosecution, this witness has accepted that while returning after watching the wedding function, the appellant had stopped the victim on the way and had molested and raped her, the witness has also accepted that when she went home and saw, the victim was lying unconscious in the shade and her clothes and panties were stained with blood, the witness has stated while accepting that when the victim was asked, she had told that the appellant had stopped her on the way near the culvert and under the Semal tree had forcibly raped her. 16 The father of the victim (PW-3) has stated in his examination-in-chief that the victim had gone to his brother's place for a wedding and had returned at 7 p.m., though this witness has not supported the prosecution case on the point of the incident, but this witness has stated that he had given a written complaint (Exhibit P/6) in the police station on the basis of which the police had registered an FIR, the witness has accepted his signature on the written complaint Ex.P.6 and FIR (Exhibit P/7). 17 Lady Head Constable Rukmani Bajare (PW-7) has stated in her examination-in-chief that on the written complaint of the victim's father, the FIR (Exhibit P/6) was registered against the appellant under Crime No. 78/2021 for the offences under Sections 341, 354, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and a memo (Exhibit P/17) was sent to CHC Janakpur for examination of the victim's private parts and the victim's statement was recorded as per her statement. 18 The victim was examined by Dr. Marisha Singh (PW-6) who has deposed that during the examination, it was found that pubic hair and breasts of the victim were developing. The labia majora and minora were normal. There was a tear in the labia minora. The victim had not started 8 menstruating. The Doctor stated that the blood pressure and pulse were normal. There were no external injuries. The number of teeth was 28. The hymen was torn, which might have indicated sexual intercourse with the victim. Bruises with blood stains were found in the vagina. The urethra was found swollen and there was a minor perineal tear. HIV, VDRL, NTHCV, HBsAg tests were advised. The mental condition of the victim was normal, UPT was negative, two vaginal slides were prepared and sealed and handed over to the concerned Constable for chemical test, pubic hair was collected in a white paper and sealed and handed over to the concerned constable for chemical test. The witness has also told that the brown colour underwear of the victim which had multiple red colour spots on it was marked with blue ink, packed and sealed and handed over to the concerned Constable for chemical test. This witness has rejected the suggestion of the defence in his cross-examination paragraph 4 that there were no signs of immediate sexual intercourse with the victim. 19 Dr. Kripashankar Paikra (PW-10), examined the appellant/convict and vide his report (Exhibit P/28) stated that the appellant was brought before him for examination by constable Manoj Chaudhary from Janakpur police station. During examination, it was found that the pubic hair of the appellant was fully developed. The scrotum and penis were fully developed, the testicles were half covered, the tactile response was normal. No rheumatism was found. The doctor also stated that during the examination, two semen slides were prepared and handed over to the constable concerned for chemical testing. A blue underwear containing several white spots was marked with red ink, sealed, and given to the same Constable for chemical testing. The doctor stated in his opinion 9 that the appellant’s examination revealed no evidence that he was incapable of sexual intercourse. 20 Exhibit P/27 is the FSL report with respect to the seized undergarments of the victim as well as the appellant/convict. In the said report, on Articles A-undergarment of victim, B1-vaginal slides, C-pubic hair of victim, D-undergarment of appellant, E1-semen slides of the appellant, semen stains and human sperms have been found. 21 The victim (PW-2) is the most important witness in this case who has not supported the prosecution story. At one point of time, she supported the prosecution case but later retracted from her own statement. However, the medical report and the FSL report clearly opines that the victim was subjected to rape by the appellant. The appellant has not been able to give any explanation with regard to presence of semen stains and human sperms on his own undergarment and also on the undergarment of the victim. He has also not been able to give any explanation as to why he would be falsely implicated in this case. 22 The prosecution has been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the minor victim was subjected to rape and penetrative sexual assault by the appellant by restraining her, using criminal force on her, and having sexual intercourse with her with the intent to outrage her modesty. The prosecution has also succeeded in proving that the victim was 13 years and 11 months old on the date of the incident. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 10 23 From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/ convict. 24 Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 25 The appellant is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence as has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 26 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentences 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. 27 Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.02.03 15:09:44 +0530