Shahbaz Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 285 Chatt

                                                                         NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 CRA No. 1208 of 2019

   • Shahbaz Khan S/o Shakir Khan aged about 21 Years R/o Govindpura,
     Post-Alampur, District- Patna, Bihar.

                                                                  ---- Appellant

                                    Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-
     Supela, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ---- Respondent

For Appellant                :            Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate.
For Respondent/State         :            Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.



                Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                            Judgment on Board
14/06/2021

1. By the impugned judgment dated 15/05/2019 passed in Special

Criminal Case No. 1208/2019 by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge (FTC), District Durg (C.G.), the Appellant has been convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and

Sections 363 & 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.

500/-, rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-

& rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-

respectively, with default stipulations. All the sentences to be run

concurrently.

2. In this case, at the relevant time age of the prosecutrix was 17 years.

According to the case of prosecution, father of the prosecutrix namely

Rohit Rajput lodged a report against the Appellant in concerned

Police Station alleging therein that the Appellant has abducted his

minor daughter. On the basis of said report, offence has been

registered against the Appellant. During course of investigation, the

prosecutrix has been recovered and her statement under Section 161

of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Later on statements of other witnesses

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

completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Trial Court

has framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant, the

prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. No defense

witness has been examined. Statement of the Appellant under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his

innocence and false implication in the matter.

3. After trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the Appellant as

mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. A certificate of incarceration sent by the Jail Superintendent, Central

Jail, Durg District Durg (C.G.) would mention that the Appellant has

undergone the entire jail sentence imposed upon him by the Trial

Court and already released from jail on 26.11.2020.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that without

being any clinching and reliable evidence available on record the Trial

Court has convicted the Appellant. He further submits that there are

material contradiction and omissions occurred in the statement of the

prosecutrix and other witnesses and by ignoring these facts the Trial

Court has wrongly convicted the Appellant.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the

impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the

Trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the record to assess the correctness of the impugned judgment of

conviction. I have also gone through the statements of the witnesses

and the prosecutrix.

8. From perusal of statements of the witnesses and the prosecutrix, it is

well established that at the time of alleged incident, the prosecutrix

was aged below 18 years of age. From the statement of the

prosecutrix, it is also established that the Appellant allured her and

taken her with him and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.

The prosecutrix remain firmed during her cross-examination. There is

nothing on record on the basis of which her statement can be

disbelieved.

9. From the evidence available on record and looking to the entire case

of prosecution there is sufficient evidence available on record against

the Appellant and the crime has duly proved against him. Thus, the

learned trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant.

10. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham