Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Markam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 June, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 748 of 2017
• Santosh Markam S/o Shri Amar Singh Markam Aged About 22 Years R/o
Village- Neginala, Police Station Nagari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Dugali, District- Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : None.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
24/06/2021
1. By the impugned judgment dated 30/04/2015 passed in Special
Criminal Case No. 41/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(FTC), Dhamtari (C.G.), the Appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section
363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- respectively,
with default stipulations.
2. According to the case of prosecution, on 30.08.2014 brother of the
prosecutrix namely Ashok Kumar Netam (PW-4) made a report in
concerned Police Station alleging therein that on 27.08.2014, the
Appellant came to his house and on the next day at around 4:30 PM,
he went to Neginala village. On 28.08.2014 at 9 AM, the prosecutrix
went to her school and came back at around 3 PM, thereafter, without
informing anyone, she went somewhere and not returned. Thereafter,
family members of the prosecutrix searched her and found her in
Appellant cousin sister's house namely Bhagwati. After enquiry, the
prosecutrix disclosed that the Appellant forcefully taken her with him
and on way, he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On the
basis of report made by brother of the prosecutrix, offence has been
registered against the Appellant. Later on statement of the prosecutrix
and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of 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 7 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, Raipur District Raipur (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 14.12.2019.
5. Since no one appears for the Appellant today, I decide this appeal on
merits.
6. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the State and perused
the record to assess the correctness of the impugned judgment of
conviction.
7. On perusal of evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is well
established that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was aged below
18 years. From the Court statement of the prosecutrix, she
categorically deposed that on the date of incident, the Appellant
committed forcible sexual intercourse with her in her house later on, he
did the same near pond and thereafter on various occasions, he
forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her. She, remain firmed,
during her cross-examination. There is nothing on record, on the basis
of which her statement can be disbelieved. Her statement is duly
corroborated by her brother Ashok Kumar Netam (PW-4).
8. 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.
9. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Shubham
