Om Prakash Sao vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 182 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Om Prakash Sao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 March, 2026

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                   1




                                               2026:CGHC:11163-DB
                                                           NAFR



         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                         CRA No. 257 of 2018

1 - Om Prakash Sao, S/o Late Maksudan Sao, Aged About 50 Years,

R/o Village Post Vasmani, Gaya Bihar,

Present Address: Rajiv Nagar, Near B.C.G. School, Supela, District

Durg Chhattisgarh.

                                                       --- Appellant


                                versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Police

Station: Supela District Durg Chhattisgarh.

                                                  --- Respondent(s)
                                 With

                         ACQA No. 28 of 2021

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Supela,

District Durg Chhattisgarh.

                                                     ---Appellant


                                Versus


1 - Om Prakash Sao S/o Late Maksudan Sao Aged About 50 Years R/o

Village/ Post Vasmani, Gaya (Bihar)
                                   2

Present Address- Rajiv Nagar, Near BCJ School, Supela, District Durg

Chhattisgarh.

                                                    --- Respondent(s)


For Appellant      : Mr. C.R. Sahu along with Mr. R.K. Gomasta,
                     Advocate in CRA No. 257/2018 & Mr. Atanu
                     Ghosh, Dy. G.A. in ACQA No. 28/2021
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. in CRA No.
                    257/2018 & Mr. C.R. Sahu along with Mr. R.K.
                    Gomasta, Advocate in ACQA No. 28/2021


                       Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
                        Judgment on Board
Per Rajani Dubey, J.

09.03.2026

1. Since the aforesaid criminal appeal and acquittal appeal arise out

of the same judgment, they are being heard together and decided

by this common judgment.

2. The present Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2018 and Acquittal

Appeal No. 28 of 2021 arise out of the judgment dated

22.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court), Durg, in Special Criminal Case No. 163 of

2015. By the said judgment, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.

257 of 2018 was convicted for offences punishable under Section

363 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 354 of the Indian Penal

Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

three years and four years, respectively, along with a fine of Rs.

500/- on each count, with the usual default stipulation. By the

same judgment, the respondent in Acquittal Appeal No. 28 of

2021 was acquitted of the charges under Section 366 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (k) read with Section 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of the

alleged incident the parents and brother of the prosecutrix went

outside the house and the prosecutrix was present at home along

with her younger sister. Taking advantage of the absence of the

family members, the accused Omprakash Sahu allegedly took the

prosecutrix to the vacant house of her uncle and committed

sexual intercourse with her. It is further alleged that when younger

sister of the prosecutrix, witnessed the incident, the accused

threatened her with dire consequences and fled from the spot. In

the evening, when the mother of the prosecutrix returned home,

her younger daughter along with a neighbour informed her about

the incident. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken for medical

examination to a lady doctor, who opined that the prosecutrix was

pregnant for about two to three months. Based on the said

information, the mother of the prosecutrix lodged a report at

Police Station Supela against the accused Omprakash Sahu

alleging commission of sexual assault upon her daughter. On the

basis of the said report, a crime was registered and investigation

was set in motion.

During the course of investigation, seizures were made and

accused and the prosecutrix were taken for medical examination.

Thereafter, the prosecutrix identified the accused during

identification proceedings conducted in accordance with law and

an identification panchnama (Ex.P/7) was prepared in this regard.

Further, during the investigation, the Investigating Officer

caused the prosecutrix to be medically examined by a radiologist

for the purpose of determination of her age. On the basis of the

statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation and the

evidence collected, the accused was arrested. The seized articles

were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical

examination. After completion of the investigation and upon

finding sufficient material establishing the commission of the

offence, a final report (charge-sheet) was filed against the

accused before the trial Court. Thereafter, charges were framed

against the accused under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(n) of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, to which accused abjured his guilt and

claimed to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution

examined as many as 13 witnesses. The statement of the

accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the incriminating

circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence

alleging false implication in the case. However, the accused did

not examine any witness in defence.

5. Upon proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, and after hearing the learned counsel for the

respective parties, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused

of the offences under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 5(k) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, the

Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable

under Sections 363 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced him accordingly as stated in para 2 of this judgment.

6. In CRA No. 257/2018, learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court

is bad in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances

available on record. The learned Trial Court has failed to properly

appreciate and evaluate the evidence placed on record in its true

perspective. He further submits that the appellant is innocent and

has been falsely implicated in the alleged offences. The

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond

reasonable doubt, which is the basic requirement for recording a

conviction in criminal cases. The essential ingredients of Sections

363 and 354 IPC are not made out against the appellant and

there is no evidence on record to establish the commission of the

said offences. The learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate

the evidence and material on record, which resulted in an

erroneous finding and an incorrect judgment of conviction. The

independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have not

supported the prosecution case, which creates serious doubt

about the prosecution story. The version of the prosecutrix

appears to be improbable and is not supported by the

surrounding circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court

has awarded the maximum sentence under Section 354 IPC

without proper justification, which is excessive and liable to be set

aside. Therefore, it is most respectfully submitted that the

impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the

learned Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the appellant be

acquitted of the charges.

Alternatively, he submits that without assailing the finding of

conviction, the appellant has restricted the present appeal solely

to the question of quantum of sentence. It is urged that the

incident is of the year 2015, the appeal has remained pending

since 2017, the appellant was about 50 years of age at the time

of the incident and has now attained the status of a senior citizen

and he has already undergone 2 years, 4 months and 13 days of

incarceration. In view of these mitigating circumstances, it is

prayed that the sentence already undergone be treated as

sufficient punishment.

7. In CRA No. 257/2018, learned counsel for the State/respondent

submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial

Court is based on proper appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence; therefore, no interference by this Court is

required in the impugned judgment.

8. In ACQA No. 28/2021, learned counsel for the appellant/State

submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the

learned Trial Judge is illegal, improper and contrary to the

material available on record. The learned Trial Judge has passed

the impugned order in a cryptic and laconic manner without

properly appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

The learned Trial Court failed to consider that the prosecution

witnesses are natural and trustworthy and have consistently

narrated the true version of the incident. In particular, the

testimony of younger sister of the prosecutrix, who is an eye-

witness, clearly establishes that the accused took the prosecutrix

inside the house and committed wrongful acts with her and even

threatened the witness not to disclose the incident. Further, the

learned Trial Court has not assigned any cogent reason for

disbelieving the testimony of the Investigating Officer. It is a

settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the

testimony of the Investigating Officer if the same is found reliable

and trustworthy. Moreover, the medical evidence also supports

the prosecution case. As per the MLC report of Dr. Babita

Saxena, the prosecutrix was pregnant for about 8-10 weeks,

which corroborates the occurrence. The radiologist report (Ex.

P/22) further establishes that the prosecutrix was about 17-18

years of age, making her a minor, whereas the

respondent/accused is about 50 years old. In view of the above

evidence and circumstances, the learned Trial Judge ought to

have convicted the accused/respondent for the offence

punishable under Section 5(k) read with Section 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Hence, it

is humbly prayed that the impugned judgment of acquittal be set

aside and the respondent/accused be convicted in accordance

with law.

9. In ACQA No. 28/2021, learned counsel for the

respondent/accused submitted that the learned Trial Court

passed a well-reasoned and lawful judgment after proper

appreciation of the entire evidence on record. It is contended that

the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the

respondent beyond reasonable doubt as the testimony of the

alleged witnesses suffers from material contradictions and lacks

independent corroboration. The learned Trial Court rightly

considered these inconsistencies and the absence of reliable

evidence while granting acquittal to the respondent. It is further

submitted that for challenging the conviction under Sections 354

and 363 of IPC, the accused/respondent has already preferred an

appeal bearing CRA No. 257/2018 before this Court. Therefore,

the impugned judgment of acquittal does not call for any

interference by this Court and the appeal filed by the State

deserves to be dismissed.

10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available

on record.

                                   "(i)       Appreciation              of
                                   evidence          is     the      core
                                   element of a criminal trial
                                   and        such        appreciation
                                   must be comprehensive--
                                   inclusive of all evidence,
                                   oral and documentary;


                                   (ii    Partial     or     selective
                                   appreciation of evidence
                                   may         result         in        a
                                   miscarriage of justice and
                                   is in itself a ground of


 challenge;


 (iii If the Court, after
 appreciation of evidence,
 finds that two views are
 possible,        the     one   in
 favour of the accused
 shall       ordinarily         be
 followed;


 (iv) If the view of the Trial
 Court       is     a      legally
 plausible        view,     mere
 possibility of a contrary
 view shall not justify the
 reversal of acquittal;


 (v) If the appellate Court
 is inclined to reverse the
 acquittal in appeal on a
 re-appreciation                of
 evidence,          it      must
 specifically      address      all
 the reasons given by the
 Trial Court for acquittal
 and must cover all the
 facts;


 (vi) In a case of reversal
 from         acquittal         to
 conviction, the appellate
 Court must demonstrate
 an illegality, perversity or
 error of law or fact in the


                                     decision   of   the   Trial
                                     Court."

                                     Sd/-                                               Sd/-
              (Rajani Dubey)                                                 (Radhakishan Agrawal)
                            JUDGE                                                   JUDGE

              Ruchi


RUCHI YADAV    RUCHI YADAV