Shivbarat vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 322 Chatt

                                                                       NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                CRA No. 253 of 2018

   • Shivbarat S/o Heerachand Aged About 23 Years R/o Karouti (B), Out Post
     Chendra, Police Station Jhilmili, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ---- Appellant

                                   Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
     Jhilmili, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

                                                            ---- Respondent

For Appellant               :            Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.
For Respondent/State        :            Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.



                Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                           Judgment on Board
15/06/2021

1. By the impugned judgment dated 23/12/2017 passed in S.T. No.

69/2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur,

District Surajpur (C.G.), the Appellant has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay

fine of Rs. 3,000/-, under Section 354 of the Indial Penal Code, the

Appellant has been convicted, but sentenced as per the provisions of

Section 42 of the POCSO Act and under Section 10 of the POCSO

Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5

years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- respectively, with default

stipulations.

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 11.05.2016, mother of the prosecutrix namely Rambai (PW-3) lodged a report in concerned

Police Station alleging therein that on 08.05.2016, her daughter went

to the house of Ramcharan Kanwar to watch television, at around

9:00 PM, Suraj (PW-9) came to the house of the prosecutrix and

informed that the Appellant taken the prosecutrix towards Mahua tree.

Thereafter, family members of the prosecutrix started searching her,

they found her but at that time, the prosecutrix did not reveal

anything. On the next day, the prosecutrix disclosed the entire

incident to her family members. On the basis of said report, FIR has

been registered against the Appellant. Later on statement of the

prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed

and the Trial Court has framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the

Appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses.

No defense witness has been examined by the Appellant. 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, Ambikapur Surguja (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 03.03.2021.

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

there 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.

8. With regard to the age of the victim girl, documentary and oral

submission made by the prosecution. At the time of alleged incident,

the victim girl was aged about 8 years. With regard to the incident also,

the victim girl supported the entire case of prosecution. Her statement

is duly corroborated by Rambai (PW-3) and Suraj (PW-9) who

witnessed the incident. Statements of above witnesses have not been

duly rebutted during their cross-examination. They remain firmed

during their cross-examination.

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

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