Premchand Deshlahre @ Ramu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Page No.1 of 8 IN CRA-1353-2019

¶2

2025:CGHC:10482-DB

¶3

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Criminal Appeal No. 1353 of 2019

¶7

[Arising out of judgment dated 07.08.2019, passed in Special Sessions Case No.49 of 2016 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Premchand Deshlehare) by the 5^th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), District Durg (CG)]

¶8

Premchand Deshlahre @ Ramu S/o Chandrakar Deshlahre Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Dumardih, Police Station Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellant (In Jail) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, ...Respondent

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla and Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyers

¶12

Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (04.03.2025)

¶13

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶14

(1) This criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant under Section 374(2) of CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2019, passed in Special Sessions Case No.49 of 2016 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Premchand Deshlehare) by the 5^th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, constituted under the provision of the

¶15

Page No.2 of 8 IN CRA-1353-2019

¶16

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the “POCSO Act”), District Durg (C.G.), whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
U/s. 376(2) of IPC	Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for 02 months.
U/s. 04 of the POCSO	Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with
Act, 2012	fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for 02 months.

¶18

(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 22.02.2016, at about 12:15 PM, at the place mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/07), which comes within the ambit of Police Station Utai, District Durg (CG), the accused-appellant committed sexual assault on the minor victim (PW-01), who was aged about 05 years and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offences.

¶19

(3) The further case of the prosecution is that father of the victim (PW-03) reported the matter to the police by way of written complaint (Ex.P/06) to the effect that on the date offence, while he had gone for his work in the society of the village, at that juncture, his brother- Niklesh Kumar Banjare (PW-05) came and informed that when his sister-in-law (bhabi) [mother of the victim] had gone to take bath and he alongwith his niece (victim) were in the home, the victim (PW-01) was suddenly missing and, upon search, he could not trace her in the house. Thereafter, when he tried to

¶20

Page No.3 of 8 IN CRA-1353-2019

¶21

search the victim (PW-01) near the ‘kota’ of the village, he found that the appellant-accused herein took the victim (PW-01) there on false pretext and committed sexual assault with her and the victim (PW-01) was found naked and crying.

¶22

(4) On the basis of aforesaid report/complaint, FIR (Ex.P/07) was registered by the police against the appellant and wheels of investigation started running, in which, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/10. Statement of the victim (PW-01) under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded vide Ex.P/01. After obtaining necessary consent vide Ex.P/04, the victim (PW-01) was subjected to medical examination, which was conducted by Dr. Mamta Gendre (PW-09) and, as per her MLC report (Ex.P/05), it has been opined that upon external examination, no injuries were found over the body of the victim (PW-01) and for internal examination she was referred to higher centre i.e. District Hospital, Durg. However, victim's vaginal slides were prepared and handed over to the police for analysis for chemical examination, which was seized vide Ex.P/17. Further, at the instance of the mother of the victim (PW-02), undergarment of the victim was also seized vide Ex.P/03. The accused-appellant was arrested and sent for medical examination. Appellant’s MLC report is Ex.P/14 and his undergarment was also seized. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination and, as per FSL report (Ex.P/20), it has been opined that no stains of human sperm/semen were found on any of the seized articles. In order to

¶23

Page No.4 of 8 IN CRA-1353-2019

¶24

ascertain correct age of the victim, copy of her school admission register (Ex.P/12) were obtained/seized vide Ex.P/11, wherein it has been mentioned that the age of the victim (PW-01) is between 4- 6 years. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

¶25

(5) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents, whereas the appellant in support of his defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶26

(6) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 376(2) of IPC and under Section 04 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶27

(7) Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in

¶28

Page No.5 of 8 IN CRA-1353-2019

¶29

convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence. In view of questions framed and answers given by the victim (PW-11) in her statement before the Court, the learned trial Court has erred in law while holding the appellant guilty for the offences in question. Learned counsel vehemently argued that in the instant case neither the medical evidence nor the forensic evidence support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the present appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charges in question.

¶30

(8) Per-contra , learned State counsel would submit that prosecution has been able to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that in view of statement of the victim (PW-10), wherein she has clearly narrated the incident and implicated appellant herein to be the author of the crime in question, coupled with other evidence available on record i.e. statement of uncle (chacha) of the victim- Niklesh Kumar Banjare (PW-05) and age of the victim (PW-01) to be 05 years vide Ex.P/12, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence mentioned herein-above. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

(9) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶32

(10) In the instant case, considering the statement of the victim

¶33

Page No.6 of 8 IN CRA-1353-2019

¶34

(PW-01), wherein she has clearly narrated the incident in question and implicated the appellant herein to be the author of the crime by stating that on the date of offence the appellant firstly took her to the ‘Badi’ in the evening on the pretext of giving chocolate and, where, he removed her clothes and committed sexual assault (galat kaam) with her and when victim's uncle (chacha), namely, Niklesh Kumar Banjare (PW-05) reached to the spot, the appellant ran away from there. The said statement of the victim (PW-01) is duly supported by Niklesh Kumar Banjare (PW-05), who is uncle (chacha) of the victim and informed the incident to victim's father (PW-03). Niklesh Kumar Banjare (PW-05) in his statement before the Court has clearly stated that on the date of offence while his mother and sister-in-law (bhabi) [mother of the victim] had gone to take bath and he alongwith the victim (PW-01) were in the house, at that time, the victim (PW-01) got missing/not found, then he thought that as the appellant had visited in his house in the afternoon, he might have taken the victim (PW-01) to the shop, but when the victim (PW-01) was not traceable for quite some time, he started search and, while searching he reached to the ‘kota’ (the place where animals were kept). Thereafter, in the room of the ‘kota’ he found the victim (PW-01) crying and naked and the appellant was committing sexual assault (galat kaam) with her and, seeing whom, the appellant ran away from the spot.

¶35

(11) Further, the victim (PW-11) and Niklesh Kumar Banjare (PW-

¶36

Page No.7 of 8 IN CRA-1353-2019

¶37

both were subjected to some length of cross-examination, but they both remained consistent in their version and, therefore, their testimonies inspire confidence and can be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty for the offence in question. Moreover, according to victim’s school admission register (Ex.P/12) seized vide Ex.P/11, her age has been recorded between 04-06 years, meaning thereby the victim (PW-01) was minor aged about 05 years on the date of offence. As such, on the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record i.e. age of the victim to be 05 years vide Ex.P/12 and statements of the victim (PW-01) and that of her uncle (chacha)Niklesh Kumar Banjare (PW-05), the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant is guilty of having committed sexual assault with the minor victim (PW-01), is strictly in accordance with law and, for which, he has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶38

(12) In that view of the matter, since the age of the victim (PW-01) is 05 years in the present case and she has clearly narrated the incident in qusetion and implicated the appellant herein to be the author of the crime, which is also in conformity with the statement of her uncle (chacha)- Niklesh Kumar Banjare (PW-05), we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant herein for the offences in

¶39

Page No.8 of 8 IN CRA-1353-2019

¶40

question. We do not find any good ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court while convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences under Section 376(2) of IPC and under Section 04 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court dated 07.08.2019 is hereby affirmed being well-merited.

¶41

(13) Consequently, this criminal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost.

¶42

(14) The Registry of this Court is directed to sent a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing, informing him that he is at liberty to assail this judgment before Hon’ble Supreme Court by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with the aid and assistance of the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee or that of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶43

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶44

s@if

Premchand Deshlahre @ Ramu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premchand Deshlahre @ Ramu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girija Shankar Patel @ Golu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hirday Ram Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mayur Deshle @ Manya Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Sindhu Youth Assocaition

Ramayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh