Chattisgarh High Court
Shail Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
Digitally
signed
by
AMIT
PATEL
2025:CGHC:38085
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1152 of 2013
Shail Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Chhahura Yadav, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Thana
Sipat District- Bilaspur C.G., Presently R/o Village- Delari Ps Punjipathara, Distt.
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
.....Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S.- A. JA. K., District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent/State
For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Afroz Khan, P.L.
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
01.08.2025
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.
against the judgment dated 01.10.2013 passed by learned Special
Judge (SC & ST Act), Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Special
Sessions Trial No. 32/2013, whereby the appellant stands convicted for
the offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine amount of Rs. 5,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, to under additional R.I. for 01 year.
2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment
and the records of the case is that on 10.01.2013 at about 12.20 pm,
2
the complainant/father of the prosecutrix lodged the report at Police
Station Punjipathara that he is doing labour work and having two
children. On Tuesday, he went to Gerwani for treatment along with
children and wife due to ill health, in addition to when he returned from
Gerwani, his brother-in-law told the wife of the complainant that on
Tuesday night at around 7.30 pm, he was returning home after
watching T.V. at that time heard a sound from the cow’s shed and when
he saw that a boy was hugging a girl, so he lit a torch and found that
the girl was his niece and the boy took advantage of the situation, fled
away from the spot. The girl told him that a boy was working in the
tower company caught, gagged her and thereby did a wrong things
with her. The father of the prosecutrix asked her daughter about the
incident, then she told him that when she had gone to fetch water, the
accused caught her alone and did the wrong things. The complainant
told the said incident to the village’s Sarpanch and also to other
villagers. The complainant’s daughter also told him that the accused
threatened her to not raise any hue and cry, otherwise he will kill her.
During the investigation, obtaining the consent from the father of the
prosecutrix and taking due permission from the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate vide Ex. P/11, prosecutrix’s medical examination was
conducted and the report is received vide Ex. P/9. After reaching the
place of incident, spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/13 before the
witnesses as per brother-in-law- Ram Lodha of the complainant. One
blue ladies underwear, black colour belt, slippers and empty plastic bag
were seized from the spot vide Ex. P/3. With ascertaining the date of
birth and caste of the prosecutrix, Fifth Class mark-sheet was seized,
produced by the father of the prosecutrix and the sealed packet given
by the doctor was seized through seizure memo Ex. P/5. Dakhil Kharij
3
register was seized with regard to the age of the prosecutrix vide Ex.
P/6, caste certificate was seized vide Ex. P/8. Statements of the
witnesses as well as prosecutrix statement were recorded. The seized
articles were sent to FSL, Raipur for chemical examination vide Ex.
P/18 and the acknowledgment was received vide Ex. P/17. Spot map
was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex. P/4. On completion of the
investigation proceedings, the accused was found to have committed
the offence and the appellant was arrested. The prosecution after
completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet
before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed
the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-
sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for
alleged commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section
3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant/accused has abjured guilt was
subjected to trial.
3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as
many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him & pleaded
innocence and false implication in the case. However, no witness
adduced by the appellant in his defence.
4. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective
parties and considered the material available on record thereby
convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in
inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal.
4
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is contrary to the
facts, evidence and law. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate
the fact that learned trial Court has erred by not considering the
statement of witnesses also ignoring the fact that there are prosecution
has not produced the eye-witness before learned trial Court. He further
submits that there were no name of the appellant disclosed by the
prosecutrix and identification parade was also not conducted. Lastly, he
submits that the appellant having completing the entire jail sentence
has been already released from the jail.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned
judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral
and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant
accordingly. However, no dispute is made regarding the fact that the
appellant after completion of the entire jail sentenced has been
released from the jail and in this regard he has filed a letter dated
01.08.2025 of Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur, wherein it has
been mentioned that the appellant has completed his jail sentence and
on 27.10.2020, has been released from the said jail.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on
record.
8. It is evident from record of learned learned trial Court that it framed
charges for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section
3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the appellant and after appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant
for offence under Section 376 of IPC by acquitting of the offence under
5
SC & ST Act and sentenced him as prescribed in inaugural para of this
judgment.
9. It is evident from the statement of prosecutrix’s father (PW-2) that on
the date of incident, prosecurtix was aged 12 years. In cross-
examination, he stated that he produced certificate of his daughter with
regard to her date of birth.
10. PW-7 Dataram Gupta, the Head Master stated that he produced
Dakhil Kharij Register before the trial Court, wherein it is mentioned
that date of birth of the prosecutrix as 10.06.2000 and he filed original
Dakhil Kharij Register vide Ex. P/6.
11. PW-9 Dr. Meena Patel, who examined the prosecutrix on 10.01.2013
and also opined approximate age of the prosecutrix i.e., 13 years old
and gave her report vide Ex. P/9.
12. PW-1 prosecutrix stated that on the date of incident her parents went to
Gerwani for purchasing medicine, at that time her uncle (mama) stayed
with her in the house, at about 8.00 pm when she went to fetch water,
the accused caught, gagged and took towards the cow shed where he
committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, at that time her uncle
heard a sound from the cow shed and he lit a torch, when she was
found crying, the accused fled from the spot. Then, she told the said
incident to her uncle and on the next day along with her parents lodged
the report before the concerned police station. The prosecutrix
identified the accused before learned trial Court and stated against
him.
13. Dr. Meena Patel (PW-9) examined the prosecutrix and found ruptured
hymen and there is redness swelling in the private part of the
prosecutrix and opined that sexual intercourse was done with her.
6
14. It is quite evident from the statement of the prosecutrix that she
categorically stated against the appellant and she remained firm in her
cross-examination and the prosecution proved its case against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court rightly convicted
the appellant under Section 376 of IPC by acquitting of offence under
Section 3(1) (xii) of SC and ST Act. Thus, findings recorded by the
learned trial Court are well merited and based upon proper appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence. This Court does not find any illegality
or irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court.
15. In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be and
is hereby dismissed.
16. As the accused/appellant is reported to has been released from jail on
27.10.2020 after completion of the entire sentence, there is no need to
pass any order regarding his arrest, surrender etc.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
AMIT PATEL