1 CGHC010265342021 2026:CGHC:35560-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1149 of 2021 Banda @ Sukhnandan Barve, S/o Samaru Barve, Aged About 49 Years R/o - Village - Neurgaon Kalan, Police Station - Bodla, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bodla, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/08/2026 1 Heard Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate for the State/ respondent. 2 Challenge in this appeal 8led under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual O?ences Act, 2012, Fast Track Court, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, in Special 2 Sessions Trial No. 75/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Jail Sentence (Rigorous) Fine Default Jail Sentence (Rigorous) 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) 5 years Rs. 500/- 1 month 366 of the IPC 5 years Rs. 500/- 1 month 376AB of the IPC For life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. Rs. 2000/- 3 month All the sentences to run concurrently. 3 Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the mother (PW-3) of the victim gave information at Police Station, Bodla on 22.08.2019 stating that she works as a labourer. She has three children, and the victim (PW-4) is her middle daughter, aged about 12 years. At that time, she was studying in Class III. After falling ill, her left leg and left hand had become paralysed, and she was unable to speak properly; however, the informant (i.e., the mother of the victim) could understand her speech properly. The victim used to go to school every day and would return after having her meal and roaming around. On that day also, i.e., on 22.08.2019, she had gone to school at about 11:00 a.m. When she did not return home by 4:00 p.m., her mother went in search of her. On asking the school teacher, she was informed that the victim had left after having her meal at about 1:00 p.m. The informant searched for the victim in the village but could not 8nd her and returned home at about 6:30 p.m. At that time, Umend Mahobia (PW-8) and Ayodhya ((PW-6), residents of the village, came to her house, called her and took her to the house of appellant. The victim was 3 sitting on the ground in the courtyard of the said house. Umend and Ayodhya told her that they had seen the appellant and the victim without clothes inside the appellant’s partially constructed Indira Awas house and that they had also informed Ramphal (PW-7) and Kumar about the same. When they told her this, she saw her daughter, the victim, and found that she was wearing only a frock, which was also torn, and that she was not wearing any clothing below the waist. She asked the victim about the incident, whereupon the victim told her that the appellant had taken her with him saying that he would give her money and had committed a wrong act with her. Thereafter, she went to the partially constructed Indira Awas house and saw that a white sack had been spread on the Eoor. Since it was dark, she could not see the victim's clothes. She brought the victim home. At the same time, her husband returned home after 8nishing his work. The informant sent her husband to call the Kotwar (Pappu). After some time, the Kotwar came to her house, and she informed him about the incident. Thereafter, her husband, the victim and the Kotwar went to lodge the report. 4 On the basis of the report alleging that appellant had enticed and taken away the victim without her consent and committed rape upon her, Crime No. 134/2019 was registered at Police Station Bodla under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. During investigation, documents relating to the age of the victim were collected, a spot map was prepared, the victim and the appellant were medically examined, statements of the witnesses were recorded, seizure proceedings were conducted as per the seizure memo, and the appellant was arrested and information regarding his arrest was given to his family members. 4 5 After completing the remaining formalities of investigation, the police of Police Station Bodla 8led the charge-sheet against the appellant before the learned trial Court for o?ences punishable under Sections 363, 376AB of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 6 The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and on being read over and explained to him, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 7 In support of its case, the prosecution examined a total of 14 witnesses, namely, Narayan Singh (PW-1), Bedram Hathile (PW-2), mother of the victim (PW-3), the victim (PW-4), father of the victim (PW-5), Ayodhya (PW-6), Ramphal Shrivas (PW-7), Umend Singh Mahobia (PW-8), Ahilya Yadav (PW-9), Radheshyam Chandravanshi (PW-10); Munindra Das (PW-11), Santram Soni (PW-12), Anil Sharma (PW-13) and Dr. Sushila Kindo (PW-14) and exhibited as many as 26 exhibits. 8 The appellant was examined under Sections 313 of the Cr.P.C. In his examination, the appellant pleaded innocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He stated that he had received land in partition in his matrimonial family, and for this reason his in-laws, namely, his uncle-in-law Ayodhya (PW-6), his brother-in-law Umend (PW-8) and others, were jealous of him. They were not allowing him to have a second Indira Awas house constructed. He approached the Police Station, after which he was allotted land, on which he was constructing his house. Because of the said reason, he was falsely implicated in the present case. He claimed himself to be innocent and that he did not commit any o?ence. In support of his defence, he examined Sukhnandan Panagar as DW-1. 5 9 The learned trial Judge, after considering the statement of witnesses and evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed in the opening paragraphs of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 10 Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ convict submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are contrary to law, facts and the evidence available on record and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. There is no eye witness to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and has recorded the 8ndings of guilt on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The FSL report is negative and does not show the presence of either semen stains or human sperm in the clothes or the slides which goes to suggest that no such o?ence has been committed by the appellant. There is no direct evidence against the appellant and the chain of circumstances has not been proved successfully by the prosecution. Most of the witnesses are relatives of the victim and are interested witnesses. Because of animosity between the family of the victim and his family, he has been falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; however, the learned trial Court has overlooked the material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire con8dence and su?ers from material inconsistencies, which have not been duly considered by the learned Trial Court. The 8ndings recorded by the learned Trial Court are thus perverse, being unsupported by the evidence on record and contrary to the settled principles 6 governing appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. Hence, he prays that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges. 11 On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are well reasoned, based on proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and do not su?er from any illegality, perversity or in8rmity warranting interference by this Court. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. The learned Trial Court has meticulously analysed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence in the form of MLC report available on record. The alleged contradictions, omissions and discrepancies pointed out by the appellants are minor and natural in nature, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case and do not a?ect its credibility. The 8ndings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon a comprehensive and correct appreciation of the entire evidence on record and are in consonance with the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence. The prosecution has proved all the essential ingredients of the o?ences beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant has failed to demonstrate any material illegality, misreading of evidence or perversity in the 8ndings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court deserve to be aJrmed. 12 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with 7 utmost circumspection. 13 So far as the age of the victim is concerned, the mother (PW-3) of the victim and the father of the victim (PW-5), in their evidence before the learned trial Court have deposed that the age of the victim was 12 years. Bedram Hathile (PW-2), Headmaster posted at Government Primary School, Neurgaon, has stated that Police Station Bodla had sought the admission and discharge register relating to the birth of the victim, vide memo (Exhibit P/3). He further stated that in compliance with the said notice, he handed over the Register to the Bodla Police on 24.09.2019, whereupon the Station House OJcer seized the admission and discharge register. This witness further stated that, at Serial No. 956 of the admission and discharge register, the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 03.05.2008 and that she was admitted to Class I on 16.06.2014. The witness identi8ed the original admission and discharge register as Exhibit P-5 and its certi8ed copy as Exhibit P-5C and stated that both documents bear his signature. 14 Inspector Santram Soni (PW-12) stated that, on 22.08.2019, when the informant, i.e., the mother of the victim produced the Class I progress report relating to the birth of the victim, the same was seized as per Exhibit P-10. No evidence has been adduced by the appellant to disprove the entry made in respect of the victim in the admission and discharge register, Exhibit P-5, nor has the said document been otherwise controverted. Accordingly, the admission and discharge register of Government Primary School, Neurgaon Kalan, produced by the prosecution as Exhibit P-5, records the date of birth of the victim as 03.05.2008. The learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a 8nding that there was no basis to disbelieve the said document. Therefore, Exhibit P- 5 establishes that on the date of the incident, i.e., 22.08.2019, the victim 8 was approximately 11 years, 3 months and 19 days old and was, therefore, a minor. 15 As regards the evidence led by the prosecution concerning the incident relating to the allegations levelled against the appellant, the mother of the victim (PW-3) deposed that on the date of the incident, the victim had gone to school at 10:00 a.m. She ate her meal at the school, and thereafter, she stated that she did not know at what time the appellant took her away. This witness further stated that when it was 4:00 p.m., she started searching for the victim near the the river, pond and nearby places, but she could not 8nd her, and by then it was 6:00 p.m. At that time, Umend (PW-8), who lived near the house of the appellant, and Ayodhya (PW-6) came and told he that her daughter i.e. the victim was in the appellant’s house. They told her that they came to know about it when the dog started barking. Thereupon, this witness went to the appellant’s house along with them and saw that the victim was sitting without clothes. She was wearing a frock on the upper portion, which was torn, and she was wearing nothing on the lower portion. The mother of the victim further stated that she suddenly became angry and, on seeing her daughter, slapped her three times. She stated that at that time the appellant Eed from the place. This witness further deposed that she questioned the victim at the spot itself and also after bringing her home. The victim told her that the appellant had called her saying that he would give her money, but did not give her any money and raped her. This witness further stated that thereafter the village Kotwar and the prominent elders of the village were called. Her husband had gone to Pandatarai for construction work. After the arrival of the village elders, her husband also came. This witness further stated that the incident was reported at about 10:00 p.m. on the very night of the incident. 9 16 Ayodhya (PW-6) deposed that on the date of incident at about 7:00–7:30 p.m., the dog near his house was barking loudly. On wondering why the dog was barking, he called his nephew Umend (PW-8). Umend went ahead carrying a torch, while this witness followed him. In the light of the torch, they saw the victim sitting there and the appellant lying there. After seeing them, they returned. Thereafter, Umend (PW-8) called the mother of the victim and also called Ramphal, the Panch of his ward. When Panch Ramphal and Kumar came and went to the spot, they again saw the victim and the appellant there. He further stated that the place of occurrence was the under-construction house of the appellant and that the appellant resided with his family at the Anganwadi building, which remained vacant. This witness further stated that by the time the mother of the victim reached the place of occurrence, the appellant had already Eed from there. The mother of the victim slapped the victim once and took her back to her house. 17 Umed Singh Mahobiya (PW-8) has deposed that while returning home at about 7:00 p.m., he was informed by his uncle Ayodhya (PW-6) that a dog was barking towards the appellant's house. As it was dark and the area was covered with tall grass, they proceeded towards the appellant’s under-construction house with a torch and stick. On illuminating the room with the torch, they found the appellant lying inside and the victim sitting beside him. They thereafter informed the ward Panch Ramphal Shrivas and Kumar Mahobiya and also informed the victim’s parents. He further stated that when the victim’s mother reached the spot, the appellant was no longer there and only the victim was present. 18 The victim’s father (PW-5) identi8ed the appellant as a resident of his village and stated that the victim was his second child and was studying 10 either in Classes VI or VII. He stated that on returning home at about 7:00 p.m., his wife informed him that the appellant had taken the victim to his under-construction house and forcibly committed rape upon her, whereafter he lodged the report at Police Station Bodla. Upon being declared hostile, he admitted that his wife had told him that the victim had gone to school at 10:00 a.m. and had not returned by 4:00 p.m.; that at about 6:30 p.m., Umed and Ayodhya informed them that the victim was near their house; and that the victim was found near the appellant’s under-construction house wearing only a frock, while the appellant was lying there. 19 The victim (PW-4), while identifying the appellant, has deposed that he was “Banda” and was a resident of her village. The victim further stated that the appellant had told her that he would give her money but did not give it, and that he then closed her mouth, laid her down, and removed her clothes. Thereafter, the victim, by gestures, indicated the removal of her clothes from below her waist. She further stated that the appellant laid her on the ground and held her tightly in his arms. Thereafter, she brought the index 8nger of her right hand near her genital area and stated that he had inserted it. The victim also stated that the appellant had spread a sack on the Eoor and made her lie on it. When the victim was asked what else the appellant had done, she indicated by gesture, using her right hand, that he had pressed her right chest and breast, and stated that at that time the person selling goods on a cart, namely Umed, had seen them. Thereafter, “Dokra,” namely Ayodhya, came there. The victim stated that thereafter the appellant ran away from the place, whereupon her mother came, slapped her twice, and subsequently took her home. The victim further stated that on the same night they went to Police Station Bodla; her father took her there and her mother came later. She 11 also stated that other persons from the village had gone to the police station, but she did not know their names. The victim stated that the police had questioned her regarding what the appellant Banda had done to her. 20 Ayodhya (PW-6), though was declared hostile, has stated that he had only seen that the victim was sitting there and the appellant was lying down. The statement made by Ayodhya (PW-6) in his examination-in- chief has not been contradicted in his cross-examination. Similarly, the statement made by Umend Singh Mahobiya (PW-8) in his examination- in-chief has also not been contradicted in his cross-examination. In addition, Ramphal Shrivas (PW-7) has also stated that he knew both the appellant as well as the victim as they were resident of the same village. This witness, stating himself to be the Panch of Ward No. 11, has deposed that the incident took place in August 2019. Ayodhya, Umend and Kumar came to call him at about 7:30 p.m. and took him to the under-construction Pradhan Mantri Awas of the appellant-Sukhnandan. There, he saw that the victim was sitting and the appellant was asleep. 21 From the statements of Ayodhya (PW-6), Umend Singh Mahobiya (PW- 8) and Ramphal Shrivas (PW-7), it is clear that at about 7:00–7:30 p.m., they had seen the victim sitting and the appellant lying down in his own under-construction house. In addition, the victim has stated regarding the incident that the appellant had told her that he would give her money but did not give it, and that he closed her mouth, made her lie down, removed her clothes, held her tightly in his arms, laid her down on a sack, and inserted his genital organ into her private part, i.e., the facts stated by her regarding the commission of rape. None of these statements made by her has been contradicted in her cross-examination. 12 22 The victim (PW-4) has clearly deposed that the appellant had inserted his private part into her private part. Ayodhya (PW-6) and Umend Singh Mahobiya (PW-8), who were the 8rst prosecution witnesses to reach the spot after the incident, and thereafter Ramphal Shrivas (PW-7), had also seen that the appellant was lying in his under-construction house and the victim was sitting there. Later, when the victim’s mother went there, she found that the appellant was no longer present, but the victim was sitting there without clothes. She was wearing only an upper frock, which was torn, and she was wearing nothing below. 23 From perusal of the deposition made by the Investigating OJcer, Santram Soni (PW-12), it has emerged that on the morning of the incident, i.e., on 23.08.2019, he left the Police Station at 6:10 a.m. and seized from the appellant’s house at the place of occurrence a yellow- coloured plastic sack bearing the inscription “J.K. Lakshmi Cement.” Further, at a distance of about 20 metres from the place of occurrence, a pink-coloured salwar was found lying, which, upon being identi8ed by the victim’s mother, was seized by him in the presence of the witnesses on the same day at 6:45 a.m., as per seizure memo Ex. P-7. In such circumstances, particularly when the victim is not physically and mentally fully healthy and normal, the aforesaid circumstances cannot be ignored. The statements made by the victim and the other witnesses before the learned trial Court, coupled with the aforesaid circumstances arising from the investigation conducted without any delay, demonstrate that the appellant had committed an act of sexual penetration against the victim at the place, date and time of the incident. 24 The victim’s father (PW-5), the victim’s mother (PW-3), and the victim herself (PW-4) have stated that, on the very night of the date of the 13 incident, they went to Police Station Bodla and lodged the report. Inspector Santram Soni (PW-12) of Police Station Bodla has stated that, on 22.08.2019, upon the victim’s mother giving oral information regarding the rape of the victim, he registered Crime No. 134/2019 under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the appellant and recorded the First Information Report (Ex.P- 12). A perusal of the FIR shows that the date of the incident is mentioned as 22.08.2019 and the time as between 13:00 hours and 18:00 hours, while the report is shown to have been lodged on the same date at 23:00 hours. In paragraph 7 thereof, the name of Banda @ Sukhnandan Barve is recorded as the accused. Thus, the FIR (Ex.P-12) having been lodged immediately after the incident, lends credence to the prosecution case. 25 Dr. Sushila Kindo (PW-14), deposed before the learned trial Court that on 23.08.2019 she conducted the medical examination of the victim in Crime No. 134/2019 of Police Station Bodla. She further stated that the victim had told her that she had been raped one day prior to the examination. The said medical witness stated that there were no external injury marks on the body of the victim; however, she also stated that the hymen of the victim was found to be torn and that menstrual blood was present. 26 In view of the foregoing, if the evidence of the victim (PW-4), Ayodhya (PW-6), Umend Singh Mahobiya (PW-8), Ramphal Shrivas (PW-7), the victim’s mother (PW-3), and the victim’s father (PW-5) are considered with regard to the various links in the chain of events, all the circumstances and links connect with one another. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the victim that the appellant had committed rape upon her at the place, date and time of the incident. 14 27 Before the learned trial Court, the appellant has got examined one witness in his defence, namely, Sukhnandan Panagar (DW-1), who has stated that on 22.08.2019, the appellant had gone from his village to Bodla to purchase vegetables and that he met this witness at a vegetable shop. He further stated that he told the appellant that they were meeting after a long time and asked him to stay. The appellant agreed to stay with him, and both of them went to this witness’s house at Bodla, where they had their meal. The defence witness further deposed that thereafter, when the appellant was leaving for his home on his bicycle, the witness told him that it was already quite late and that he would drop him home on his motorcycle. Accordingly, he dropped the appellant at his house at about 8:30 p.m. The defence witness further stated that he remained there at the appellant’s house at Neurgaon for about half an hour. Thus, the defence taken on behalf of the appellant is that on the date and at the time of the incident as alleged by the prosecution, the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence at Neurgaon; rather, he was at the house of the defence witness at Bodla. The said defence appears to be unbelievable as one person cannot be present in one time at two places. The appellant raised this defence for the 8rst time through the testimony of the defence witness and not before that. This appears to be an afterthought and, therefore, the said defence does not merit acceptance. 28 In the light of aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to endorse the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court. 29 For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is 15 liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 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. 30 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence 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. 31 Let a certi8ed 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 Bablu / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.08.14 11:17:58 +0530