1 CGHC010011322010 2026:CGHC:32298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.16 of 2010 Reserved on 17/07/2026 Pronounced on 28 /07/2026 Arjun S/o Mahadev Mahara, Aged about 19 years, Student, R/o Village Koynar, Kotwarpara, P.S. Frezarpur, District Bastar (C.G.) --- Appellant (In Jail) versus State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Frazerpur, District Bastar (C.G.) --- Respondent AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.858 of 2009 Arjun Mahara S/o Mahadev Mahara, Aged 19 years, Occupation Student R/o Village Koynaar, Kotwarpara, P.S. Frazerpur, District Bastar (C.G.) --- Appellant (In Jail) versus State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Frazerpur, District Bastar (C.G.) --- Respondent Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2010 For Appellant : Shri Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Sachchidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer Criminal Appeal No.858 of 2009 For Appellant : Shri M. L. Sakat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Sachchidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.07.28 18:13:20 +0530 2 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal CAV Judgment 1. Since both these appeals preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 15/10/2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.44/2009 (Crime No.123/2009), whereby, he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of these appeals, are that the appellant was charged under Section 376(1) of IPC for the commission of sexual intercourse of a minor girl, aged 13 years, studying in 6th standard, on the allegation that seven months prior to lodging of the report (Ex.P-3) dated 28/03/2009, by her father before the Police Station Frazerpur, District Bastar, he exploited her sexually, when her parents had gone to Village Semra for livelihood. It is alleged by the prosecution that at the time of Holi Festival, when her parents returned to their Village Koynar, the daughter of theirs was not taking meals on account of her ill health, owing to which, she was taken to the hospital, where it was revealed that she was pregnant having five months fetus and after returning home, she narrated the incident to her parents, upon inquiry being made, that the appellant used to come to their house and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully in every often day and, has disclosed the said fact also in the Panchayat Meeting held on 12/03/2009. It is 3 alleged further that in the said meeting, the appellant-accused had accepted his guilt and, he and his parents have told to keep her and requested not to lodge any report in the Police Station and, under the garb of such an assurance, they have taken her, but after few days, she was driven out from the house, which led to lodging of the report (Ex.P-3) by her father before the Police Station Frazerpur, District Bastar on 28/03/2009. Based upon the alleged allegations, the appellant-accused was charged as such, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, coupled with the ossification test (Ex.P-1), it was held that the prosecutrix is minor, below the age of 16 years and accordingly, it was held that the alleged of her consensual relationship with the appellant cannot be held to be a valid one and, in consequence, he has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeals have been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding the prosecutrix to be minor and thereby convicting the appellant for the commission of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant as such. It is contended further that though the alleged incident was taken 4 place some times prior to seven months of lodging the report, yet no plausible explanation has been offered as to why the report has not been lodged immediately after the occurrence of the alleged incident and, since the inordinate delay has not been explained, therefore, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant as such. Further of his contention is that in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, except for the ossification test showing the minority of the prosecutrix, it ought not to have held that the prosecutrix was minor below the age of 16 years and, contended further that even if three years margin is considered on either side, the age of her could not be held to be below 16 years. The findings recorded by the trial Court, thus, deserve to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 7. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-4 and, a bare perusal of her testimony would reveal the fact that the appellant used to come to her house regularly for watching television and, when no one would be at home, he then used to commit sexual intercourse despite resistance being made by her. It appears further that the alleged act of the appellant has not been disclosed by her to anyone and, it was 5 revealed only when she narrated the alleged act of him to her parents, when her abdomen started showing, owing to which, she was taken to the hospital, where she was found to be pregnant. It appears further from her testimony that she has disclosed the alleged act of the appellant in the Panchayat Meeting also, which is found to be corroborated not only by her father (PW-3) and the members of the village panchayat, namely, Ganpat (PW-5) and Sukhlal (PW-6), but from the testimony of the appellant’s father, namely, Mahadev (DW-1) as well and, the Dr. Anjana Bhasker (PW-2), who examined her, did not find any injuries on internal parts of her body. 8. In view of the aforesaid evidence led by the parties, it is, thus, evident that the alleged sexual relation of the prosecutrix with the appellant was made with their mutual consent, owing to which, she became pregnant. 9. Now, the focal point of decision would be the age of the prosecutrix, in order to determine as to whether she was major as to give her consent on the date of occurrence of the alleged incident, occurred seven months prior to the lodging of the report (Ex.P-3) dated 28/03/2009. 10. Ex.P-6-A is the certificate of the prosecutrix, where her date of birth was shown to be “16/01/1996” and, according to the statement of Dr. Anjana Bhasker (PW-2), she was found to be aged about 13 years old and according to the radiological report (Ex.P-1), 6 conducted by the Radiologist-Dr. Govind Singh (PW-1), her age was found to be below the age of 15 years. 11. In view of the aforesaid unrebuttal evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecutrix was, thus, found to be minor and her consent for alleged relations with the appellant would, therefore, be of no use and, he would, therefore, be not entitled to get any benefit of it. 12. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15/10/2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.44/2009 (Crime No.123/2009), convicting the appellant for the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in these appeals. 13. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant-accused is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds and surety stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail for serving remaining part of the jail sentence. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and action 15. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected matter also. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane