Arjun Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 158 Chatt

                                                                             NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                CRA No. 581 of 2015

   • Arjun Singh Thakur, S/o Chakodilal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Narsinghpur, P.S.
     Gotegaon M.P., Present Address Village Domerpali Lahrod Padav Pithora,
     District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                      ---- Appellant

                                        Versus

   • State of Chhattisgarh, S/o Through Station House Officer, Outpost Tendukona
     Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamud ( Wrongly Mentioned as Saraypali),
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                   ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board

07/06/2021

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

24.01.2015 passed in Special S.T. No.H-29/2014 by the Additional

Sessions Judge, FTC, Special Court (POCSO) District -

Mahasamund, (C.G.) wherein appellant has been convicted and

sentenced as under :

                    Conviction                             Sentence

               U/s 363 of the I.P.C.         R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs.500/-
                                                    with default stipulations

               U/s 366 of the I.P.C.         R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs.500/-
                                                    with default stipulations
       U/s 6 of POCSO Act, 2012         R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/-
                                               with default stipulations

       Advocate fees of Legal Aid         Rs.1500/- as the appellant was
                                               granted Legal Aid.

                         All sentences to run concurrently.

2. According to the case of the prosecution, at the time of alleged

incident, age of the prosecutrix was below 14 years. According to the

entries of kotwari panji, age of the prosecutrix is 12.02.2000. On

24.06.2014 at about 1:00 PM, father of the prosecutrix lodged a report

vide Ex.P-8 stating that when he and other family members returned to

his house, they found that her daughter (prosecutrix) was missing from

his house. On the basis of the said report, offence has been

registered. Further case of the prosecution is that, appellant and

prosecutrix had love relationship with each other and on various

occasions, appellant committed sexual intercourse with her on pretext

of marriage. On the date of incident also, on being called by the

appellant, prosecutrix left her house and went to meet the appellant.

There also, appellant committed sexual intercourse with the

prosecutrix. Next morning prosecutrix was recovered near a tower

situated at village. Her statement was recorded. She was also

medically examined by the doctor. Statement of other witnesses were

also recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of the

investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. To prove the guilt of the

accused/appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 9

witnesses. No defence witness has been examined. Statement of

appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and false implication in

the matter.

3. After completion of trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced

the appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence,

this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that

appellant is innocent and is falsely implicated in the present case. He

further submits that trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant

without there being sufficient and clinching evidence against him.

There is no evidence available regarding kidnapping of the prosecutrix.

She was found at the bus stop and she herself had left her house.

There are material contradictions and omissions occurred in the

statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. From the admissions

made by the witnesses, it appears that there was a dispute between

father of the prosecutrix and appellant and this fact was not

appreciated by the trial Court. Also, the entire prosecution story is

suspicious. Therefore, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supports the

impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial

Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the

record minutely.

7. With regard to the age of the prosecutrix (PW-1), in her Court

statement she has categorically stated that her date of birth is

11.02.2000. According to the entries of the kotwari panji vide Ex.P-17 also, her date of birth is mentioned as 12.02.2000. Durga Prasad (PW-

5), father of the prosecutrix has also stated that date of birth of her

daughter (prosecutrix) is 11.02.2000. Statements of prosecutrix (PW-1)

and his father Durga Prasad (PW-5) are not duly rebutted during there

cross-examination. Therefore, from the statements of both the

witnesses and also on the basis of the entries made in the kotwari

panji, date of birth of the prosecutrix was below 16 years.

8. With regard to the alleged incident, prosecutrix (PW-1) has deposed

that from the last 2-3 years, there was love relationship between her

and the appellant. According to this witness, appellant on pretext of

marriage had committed sexual intercourse with her on various

occasions. She further deposed that on the date of incident, appellant

came near her house and asked her to come to Pithoura in cycle.

Then she reached to Pithoura tower where appellant made physical

relationship with her. She further deposed that she stayed alone on the

said night near the tower. On the next day, grandfather of the

prosecutrix reached the spot and took the prosecutrix with him. In

paragraph 4 of the examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix, she has

categorically stated that, appellant used to say her that he liked her

and he would marry her and then used to develop physical relationship

with her. Though in paragraph 13, she has admitted the fact that

neither appellant has prosposed for marriage nor asked to elope with

him, but in the above, this witness has categorically stated that on the

dated of incident, appellant came near her house and asked her to

come to Pithoura in cycle. Then she reached to Pithoura tower where

appellant made physical relationship with her and this fact was not duly

rebutted during her cross-examination. Prior to the alleged incident also, on various occasions appellant used to develop sexual

relationship with prosecutrix, and this fact was also not rebutted during

her cross-examination. Looking to the above, it is well-established that

appellant on pretext of marriage, used to commit sexual relationship

with the prosecutrix and on the date of incident also, on being asked

by the appellant, prosecutrix went to Pithoura tower to meet appellant

in cycle.

9. On a minute examination of the evidence on record, it is clear that

there is sufficient evidence against the appellant to hold him guilty. In

my considered view, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

10. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash