Tejram Vishwkarma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 272 Chatt

                                                                               NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 2015

   • Tejram Vishwkarma, S/o Aamarsai Vishwkarma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
     Mudgaon, P.S.- Bagbahara, Civil And Revenue District- Mahasamund,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                        ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

   • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station, Bagbahara, Civil And Revenue
     District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     ---- Respondent

       For Appellant            :      None
       For State/Respondent     :      Shri B.P. Banjare, Dy. G.A.




                Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                              Judgment on Board

11/06/2021

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

24/03/2015 passed in Special S.T. No.H-50/2014 by the Additional

Sessions Judge, FTC,/Special Court (POCSO), 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 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-
                                                     with default stipulations

               U/s 366 of the I.P.C.          R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-
                                                     with default stipulations

              U/s 4 of POCSO, 2012            R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-
                                              with default stipulations

                        All sentences to run concurrently.

2. According to the case of prosecution, father of the prosecutrix

Munshilal Lodged a report in Police Station Baghbahara stating that

his 16 years old daughter had gone to school on 08/02/2014 at 7:00

AM, but did not return to home. It was also found that his neighbour i.e.

present appellant was also missing. When prosecutrix was being

searched, at that time, appellant made a call to father of the

prosecutrix from mobile and told him that his daughter (prosecutrix) is

with him and he made her elope to perform marriage with her. On the

basis of the said report, offence under Sections 363 & 366 of the I.P.C.

is registered. During course of investigation, prosecutrix was

recovered. Statements of prosecutrix and other witnesses were

recorded under Section 161 of the 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 7

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. A Jail report sent by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur,

(C.G.) dated 17/03/2021 would mention that appellant has undergone the entire jail sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court and

already released on 13/01/2020.

5. No one appears on behalf of appellant today. Finding the correctness

of judgment of the trial Court, I decide this appeal on merits.

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

record and other annexed documents to assess the correctness of the

impugned judgment of conviction.

7. From the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution,

it is well-established that at the time of alleged incident, age of the

prosecutrix was below 16 years. Prosecutrix, in her Court statement

has supported the entire case of the prosecution and deposed

according to the case of prosecution. She has categorically deposed

that appellant, on pretext of marriage has taken her with him and both

have stayed together for about one year at various places where

appellant committed sexual intercourse with her on various occasions

and he did not perform marriage with her. Prosecutrix remained firm

during her cross-examination. There is nothing on the record on the

basis of which statement of the prosecutrix can be disbelieved.

8. 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.

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

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash