Hemant Kumar Deshlahre vs State Of Chhattisgarh

2026:CGHC:20809-DB
MANPREET
KAUR
Digitally signed
by MANPREET
KAUR
Date: 2026.05.07
11:00:20 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 957 of 2017
Hemant Kumar Deshlahre S/o Vishal Ram Deshlahre, Aged About 24
Years R/o Aawas Para, Ward 24, Daundi, Police Station Daundi, District
Balod, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Rajhara, District
Balod, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
05.05.2026
1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 24.01.2017 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) in Special
Session Case No. 22/2016 whereby, the appellant has been
convicted for offences punishable as under:

Conviction
under Section
Sentences (to both the appellants)
Section 363 of the
IPC
R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default of payment of fine 1 month R.I.
Section 366 of the
IPC
R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default of payment of fine 1 month R.I.
Section 376 of the
IPC
Life imprisonment & Fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for
1 month.
All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. It transpires from the order-sheet that the appellant after being
released on bail did not appear before the Registry for marking
his presence during pendency of the appeal, but as the
appellant is being represented by his counsel Mr. Sandeep
Yadav, we proceed to hear the matter finally.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the date of birth of the
victim is stated to be 22.07.1999. It is alleged that she pursued
her schooling from Class 1st to 10th in her native village Bital
while residing with her parents, and thereafter was studying in
Class 11th while staying in a hostel at village Dundi.
4. As per the prosecution, in the month of August, 2015, the
accused contacted the victim and asked her to meet him,
during which he expressed his intention to marry her. It is
alleged that the victim informed the accused that she was a
minor. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused, on the pretext
of marriage, introduced the victim to his family members, who

are also stated to have advised him that the victim was
underage.
5. It is further the case of the prosecution that in February, 2016,
the accused allegedly took the victim to the market area of
village Sambalpur and thereafter to another house situated at
Bandhiyapara, Dundi, where it is alleged that he established
physical relations with her. Subsequently, the victim went to
reside at her maternal grandmother’s house in village
Belargondi.
6. The prosecution further alleges that thereafter, the accused
again contacted the victim and induced her to accompany him
to Bhopal. It is alleged that he called her to Rajnandgaon and
from there took her to Bhopal by train, where she was kept in a
rented accommodation for about 15 days. Thereafter, upon
receiving a call from her father, the victim returned and is stated
to have gone to the house of the accused. It is further alleged
that the accused thereafter took her to his brother’s house at
village Umarpoti, where she stayed for about 10 days, and
subsequently returned to her parental home on 03.05.2016.
7. It is further alleged that on 05.05.2016, the accused came to
the house of the victim and took her along with him in the
presence of her parents while reiterating his intention to marry
her. Thereafter, on the written report submitted by her father,

namely PW-1 Sonu Ram (Exhibit P-1), a First Information
Report (Exhibit P-2) came to be registered on the same day.
8. During the course of investigation, the victim was recovered
and necessary procedural steps were undertaken, including
preparation of spot map (Exhibit P-3), seizure of articles
(Exhibit P-5), and recording of statements of witnesses. The
statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Medical examination of the
victim was conducted with due consent, and relevant articles
were sent for forensic examination to the State Forensic
Science Laboratory. The school records pertaining to the age of
the victim were also seized. Upon completion of investigation,
charge-sheet came to be filed before the competent Court.
9. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. The
prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as
many as 10 witnesses.
10. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he admitted certain
factual aspects as noted in paragraph 2 of the impugned
judgment, however, denied the remaining incriminating
circumstances and pleaded innocence. The accused did not
lead any evidence in defence.

11. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned
trail Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him
as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution
that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the present case. It is contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct
perspective and has recorded the conviction in a mechanical
manner without due consideration of material infirmities in the
prosecution case. It is further submitted that the material available
on record, including the statements of the victim, would indicate
prior acquaintance between the parties and does not prima facie
disclose any element of force, threat, or coercion attributable to
the appellant, which aspect has been overlooked by the trial
Court. Learned counsel also submits that there are material
omissions and contradictions in the statements of prosecution
witnesses which go to the root of the matter but have not been
properly appreciated. It is further argued that the prosecution has
failed to satisfactorily establish the age of the victim in accordance
with law, and such deficiency has not been duly considered by the
trial Court. On the aforesaid grounds, it is contended that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,
and the impugned judgment of conviction, being unsustainable in
law, deserves to be set aside.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and
submits that
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.
15. The first and foremost issue which arises for consideration in
the present appeal is with regard to the age of the victim at the
time of the alleged incident, as the conviction recorded by the
learned trial Court is primarily founded on the premise that the
victim was below 18 years of age.
16. The prosecution, in order to establish the age of the victim, has
relied upon the statement of the victim (PW-2), the testimonies of
her parents (PW-1 Sonu Ram and PW-9 Smt. Vimala Purame),
and the school records, namely the mark-sheet (Article A) and the
admission and withdrawal register (Article B), proved through
Dinesh Kumar (PW-4).
17. The victim (PW-2) has stated her date of birth to be
22.07.1999. However, it is noteworthy that her statement is not
supported by any contemporaneous birth certificate issued by a
competent authority. The prosecution has also not produced any
document showing the source of entry of date of birth in the
school records.

18. The school register produced through PW-4 reflects the date of
birth of the victim as 22.07.1999. However, the said witness has
categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the entry was
not made by him and that he has no personal knowledge
regarding the basis on which such entry was recorded. In the
absence of proof regarding the foundational basis of such entry,
the evidentiary value of the school register becomes doubtful.
19. The testimonies of the parents also do not inspire complete
confidence on the aspect of age. While PW-1 has made a general
statement regarding the age of the victim, he has admitted that no
birth certificate was produced at the time of her admission in
school. PW-9, the mother, has only stated that the victim was born
in the year 1999, without specifying the exact date. Thus, their
statements are approximate in nature and lack precision.
20. The prosecution has also relied upon the radiological
examination (Exhibit P-9), wherein the age of the victim has been
assessed to be between 16 to 18 years, with a margin of variation.
It is a settled position that such medical opinion is only an
estimate and where a margin is provided, the benefit thereof must
ordinarily enure to the accused.
21. In the present case, the radiological report indicating an age
bracket of 16 to 18 years, coupled with the absence of reliable
documentary proof regarding the exact date of birth, creates a
reasonable doubt with regard to the minority of the victim. The

learned trial Court, however, appears to have accepted the
prosecution version in a routine manner without critically
examining the evidentiary deficiencies in proving the age.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the victim was below 18 years of
age at the time of the alleged incident. The benefit of such doubt
must necessarily go to the appellant.
23. In the matter of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of UP,
(2006) 5 SCC 584, relying upon its earlier judgment in case of
Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, 1988 supp. SCC 604 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :
“26. To render a document admissible under Section 35,
three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is
relied on must be one in a public or other official book,
register or record; secondly, it must be an entry stating a
fact in issue or relevant fact; and thirdly, it must be made
by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any
other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined
by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the
school register is relevant and admissible under Section
35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person
in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to
prove the age of the person in the absence of the
material on which the age was recorded."
24. In the matter of Alamelu and Another Vs. State, represented
by Inspector of Police, (2011) 2 SCC 385 , the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that the transfer certificate which is issued by
government school and is duly signed by the Headmaster would
be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act
1872. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of
not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the prosecutrix in
the absence of any material on the basis of which the age was
recorded. It was observed as under
“40. Undoubtedly, the transfer certificate, Ex.P16 indicates
that the girl's date of birth was 15th June, 1977. Therefore,
even according to the aforesaid certificate, she would be
above 16 years of age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on
the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July, 1993. The
transfer certificate has been issued by a Government School
and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it
would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the
Indian Evidence Act. However, the admissibility of such a
document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove
the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis
of which the age was recorded.
48. We may further notice that even with reference to
Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, a public document
has to be tested by applying the same standard in civil as
well as criminal proceedings. In this context, it would be
appropriate to notice the observations made by this Court in
the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P.4 held as
follows:-
"The age of a person as recorded in the school
register or otherwise may be used for various
purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for
obtaining an appointment; for contesting election;
registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit
under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of
litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being
represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a
suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a
minor he was not appropriately represented therein or
any transaction made on his behalf was void as he
was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of
determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to
the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of

the Evidence Act will have to apply the same
standard. No different standard can be applied in case
of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or
similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix
although might have consented with the accused, if on
the basis of the entries made in the register
maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is
recorded, the accused would be deprived of his
constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution,
as in that case the accused may unjustly be
convicted."
25. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove with regard to the
age of the victim, the next question which arises for
consideration before this Court is whether the prosecution has
been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the
alleged acts attributed to the appellant were committed under
circumstances attracting criminal liability, and whether the
evidence of the victim (PW-2) and supporting witnesses
inspires confidence so as to sustain the conviction recorded by
the learned trial Court.
26. In this context, it becomes necessary to examine the testimony
of the and other material witnesses, along with the surrounding
circumstances and documentary evidence, in order to assess
the credibility, consistency, and overall probative value of the
prosecution case.
27. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony of the
victim (PW-2), supported by her parents, Sonu Ram (PW-1)
and Smt. Vimala Purame (PW-9), as well as certain
documentary and medical evidence exhibited during trial. It is,

therefore, incumbent upon this Court to undertake a careful and
comprehensive scrutiny of their testimonies in light of the entire
material on record.
28. The victim (PW-2), in her examination-in-chief, has alleged that
the appellant had established physical relations with her on
multiple occasions against her will at different places, including
at Bandhiyapara, Dundi, and subsequently at Bhopal. Her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-10) broadly
reiterates the version given before the Court. However, upon a
close examination of her cross-examination, several material
aspects emerge which have a direct bearing on the credibility
of the prosecution case.
29. The victim has admitted that she was in continuous telephonic
contact with the appellant prior to the alleged incidents and that
she had voluntarily met him on several occasions. She further
admitted that she had accompanied the appellant to different
places, including Sambalpur and thereafter to locations
associated with the appellant, and had stayed there for varying
durations. She has also admitted that she travelled with the
appellant to Rajnandgaon and thereafter to Bhopal, where she
resided in a rented accommodation for several days.
30. It is significant to note that the victim has admitted that during
the period she remained with the appellant at different places,
including Bhopal and Umarpoti, she did not raise any alarm or

complaint to any person, despite having opportunities to do so.
She has further admitted that she remained in contact with her
family members during this period, yet did not disclose the
alleged acts to them.
31. The victim has also admitted that prior to lodging of the present
FIR (Exhibit P-2), she along with her father had approached the
police station in the month of March, where both parties were
counselled and advised not to associate with each other, and
were thereafter allowed to go. This prior intervention assumes
significance, as despite such warning, the victim again
accompanied the appellant thereafter.
32. Further, in her cross-examination, the victim has admitted that
she had left her parental home along with the appellant in
public view and had travelled with him willingly. She has also
admitted that she did not lodge any complaint against the
appellant during the entire period she remained with him.
These admissions materially affect the prosecution case,
particularly on the aspect of absence of resistance or
immediate disclosure.
33. The testimony of PW-1 (father of the victim) also assumes
considerable importance. He has deposed that he became
aware of the association between the victim and the appellant
prior to the lodging of the FIR. He has admitted that the victim
remained away from home from 14.02.2016 to 15.03.2016 and

that despite his efforts to persuade her, she expressed her
intention to remain with the appellant. He has further admitted
that the victim had left with the appellant in his presence and
that she had insisted on accompanying him.
34. PW-1 has also acknowledged that earlier, when the matter was
taken to the police station, both parties were counselled and no
formal case was registered at that stage. This admission
indicates that the association between the parties was known
and had been addressed earlier, thereby casting doubt on the
sudden escalation of allegations at a later stage.
35. Similarly, PW-9 (mother of the victim) has admitted in her
cross-examination that the victim had left the house along with
the appellant carrying her belongings, including clothes. She
has further admitted that the victim did not make any complaint
to her regarding any alleged misconduct by the appellant
during the relevant period. She has also stated that despite
efforts made by the family members to dissuade her, the victim
continued to accompany the appellant.
36. The evidence of the victim and her parents, when read
conjointly, indicates that the victim had remained in the
company of the appellant for a considerable duration, had
travelled with him to different places, and had opportunities to
return or disclose the alleged acts, but did not do so. The

conduct emerging from the record assumes significance while
assessing the overall probability of the prosecution case.
37. As regards the medical evidence, PW-7 (Dr. Rashmi Glad) has
proved the medical examination report of the victim (Exhibit P-
14) and the examination of her garments (Exhibit P-15). The
report indicates that the hymen was found ruptured and healed,
and samples were collected for forensic examination. However,
the doctor has opined that a definite conclusion regarding
sexual intercourse could only be drawn after chemical analysis.
38. The report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit P-
25), admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C., indicates the
presence of seminal stains and spermatozoa on the samples
examined. Similarly, the medical examination of the appellant
conducted by PW-3 (Exhibit P-11) indicates that he was
capable of performing sexual intercourse, and the examination
of his garments (Exhibit P-12) revealed presence of stains.
39. However, it is well settled that medical and forensic evidence
indicating physical relations, by itself, is not determinative of
culpability unless it is corroborated by clear and cogent
evidence establishing the circumstances in which such acts
occurred. In the present case, the surrounding circumstances,
conduct of the parties, and admissions in the testimony create
doubt regarding the prosecution version.

40. It is also pertinent to note that there are material omissions and
inconsistencies between the statements of the victim under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-10) and her deposition before
the Court, particularly with regard to the sequence of events
and the manner in which she accompanied the appellant.
These inconsistencies have not been satisfactorily explained by
the prosecution.
41. The learned trial Court, while recording conviction, has placed
reliance on the testimony of the victim without adequately
considering the aforesaid material aspects, including her
conduct, the admissions made during cross-examination, and
the inconsistencies in her version.
42. Upon cumulative consideration of the evidence of PW-2, PW-1,
and PW-9, along with the documentary and medical evidence
on record, this Court finds that the prosecution version does not
inspire such confidence as would warrant sustaining the
conviction. The evidence, at best, gives rise to a situation
where two views are possible.
43. In such circumstances, the settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence requires that the view favourable to the accused
be adopted. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the benefit
of doubt

44. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal is allowed and
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 24.01.2017 is set aside.
45. The appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender,
however, keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A
CrPC (now Section 481 of BNSS), his bail bonds are not
discharged at this stage and shall remain effective for a period
of six months from today along with an undertaking that in the
event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant
judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on
receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
46. The trial Court record alongwith the copy of this judgment be
sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for
compliance and necessary action.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet