IN TH Whether on whether the Ashok Kum State of Har CORAM : Argued by Ramesh Ch 1. brevity, “ap 29.05.2015 Court of Le “Sessions C Haryana V 08.12.2014 brevity, ‘18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA CRA Reser Prono Uploa er only the operative part of the r the full judgment is pronounced k Kumar Versus Haryana AM : HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE AL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R ed by:-Mr.Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Pradeep Prakash Chahar ***** sh Chander Dimri J. : Through the present appeal, ty, “appellant”) challenges a judg .2015 and an order of sentence date t of Learned Additional Sessions Ju ions Court”) in Sessions Case No. Vs. Ashok Kumar”, arising ou .2014 under Section 376 of the In ty, ‘1860 Code’) and Section 4 of PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CRA-D-1413-DB-2015 (O&M) Reserved on : 20.03.2026 Pronounced on: 18.05.2026 Uploaded on: 18.05.2026 the judgment is pronounced or nced:- Full Judgment. ……Appellant ..…Respondent ALKA SARIN CE RAMESH CHANDER DIMR ocate (Legal Aid Counsel) ahar, Sr.DAG, Haryana. ppeal, the appellant/accused (for judgment of conviction dated dated 30.05.2015 passed by the ons Judge, Faridabad (for brevity No.23 of 2015 titled as “State of ing out of an FIR No.459 dated the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for 4 of The Protection of Children or IMRI (for ated y the evity of ated (for ldren SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -2- from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity, ‘2012 Act’) registered at Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad, through which, the appellant was convicted under the said sections and was sentenced to undergo concurrent sentences of rigorous imprisonment for life with a direction to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 376 of the 1860 Code and Rs.10,000/- under Section 4 of the 2012 Act. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each. 2. The prosecution case, as unfolded by the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, ‘1973 Code’), is that on 08.12.2014, the complainant (real name withheld) got recorded her statement Ex.PB to the police of Women Cell, NIT Zone, Faridabad that she works in a medicine factory in the area of DLF. On the said date, after finishing her duty at about 5.30 p.m. she reached her house at about 6.00 p.m. From a room of her house, she heard her daughter screaming (real name withheld and hereinafter referred to as “prosecutrix”) aged about 7 years. She saw that the door of the said room was shut from outside and curtains had been drawn. When she pushed the main door open, she saw that her tenant-Ashok Kumar (appellant) had laid the prosecutrix on the bed and after taking off her trouser and his pants, he was trying to commit rape on her. She caught hold of the appellant from his collar and pulled him down. She also slapped him. She then asked the prosecutrix as to what the appellant was doing with her. The SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -3- prosecutrix told her that when she was taking an apple out of the refrigerator, the appellant caught hold of her and laid her on the bed. He took his pants and her pyjami off and was putting his penis in her vagina as well as anus because of which she was screaming. Appellant had caught hold of her forcibly and was not leaving her. The prosecutrix narrated the said facts to the complainant. In the meanwhile, brother ‘B’ (real name withheld) of the complainant came to meet her. She told to him everything. 3. On the statement of the complainant, the above- mentioned FIR was registered. Investigation was started by SI Raj Rani from Women Cell, NIT, Faridabad. Place of occurrence was inspected. Rough site-plan thereof was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The appellant was arrested on that very day. He was got medico-legally examined from BKH Hospital, Faridabad. The prosecutrix was also got medico-legally examined. In her medico-legal report, the concerned Doctor opined that possibility of sexual intercourse on her cannot be ruled out. On 09.12.2014, the complainant and the prosecutrix were produced before the concerned Magistrate for recording their statements under Section 164 of the 1973 Code. Accordingly, their statements were recorded. Scaled site-plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Birth certificate of the prosecutrix was collected. On completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 of the 1973 Code was SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -4- prepared on 02.01.2015 and was presented before the concerned Magistrate. 4. On receipt of the said report, the concerned Magistrate, after complying with the provisions contained in Section 207 of the 1973 Code, vide its order dated 20.01.2015, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After such commitment, the Sessions Court heard the prosecution and the appellant on the issue of framing of charges against the appellant. After such hearing, vide order dated 02.02.2015, it charge-sheeted the appellant under Section 376 of the 1860 Code and Section 4 of the 2012 Act. However, he did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the prosecutrix, the complainant, the doctors and the investigating officer as well as other formal witnesses. 6. On completion of prosecution evidence, the Learned Sessions Court recorded statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the 1973 Code. In the said statement, he denied the entire prosecution case and then stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as the complainant and her family members want to extract money from him. 7. On closure of evidence, the Learned Sessions Court heard the parties on merits of the case. After such hearing, the impugned judgment and order were passed in the above-stated terms. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is in appeal. SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -5- 8. We have heard learned Legal-Aid-Counsel for the appellant and learned Senior DAG, Haryana, on merits of the appeal. With their assistance, we have perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that depositions of the prosecutrix and the complainant do not establish offence/s of rape/penetrative sexual assault against the appellant. Their depositions are contrary to their stand in the statements Ex.PA to PC. No injury was detected on the private parts of the prosecutrix. The said fact establishes that no rape/penetrative sexual assault was committed on the prosecutrix. The appellant was falsely implicated for extracting money. There is no corroboration to the statements of the prosecutrix and the complainant. In view thereof, the appellant could not have been convicted/sentenced on uncorroborated testimony of the said two witnesses. The said aspects have not been taken into consideration by the Learned Sessions Court. He has accordingly prayed for acceptance of the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned Sr.DAG, Haryana has argued that the depositions of the prosecutrix and the complainant made before the Court coincide with the stand taken in the statements Ex.PA to PC on all material particulars. The same establish commission of rape/penetrative sexual assault by the appellant on the prosecutrix on the above-stated date and time. Plea of false implication is an afterthought. The Learned Sessions Court has taken into consideration every aspect of the matter while rendering the SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -6- impugned judgment and order. He has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Before proceeding further, we will summarize the prosecution evidence. 11.1 Witness No.1 examined by the prosecution is the prosecutrix herself. She has deposed herself to be aged 7 years. After putting certain questions to her, the Learned Sessions Court declared her to be a competent witness having sufficient understanding of right and wrong, honesty and dishonesty as well as value of truthfulness and accordingly did not treat it necessary to administer oath to her. In her examination-in-chief, she inter alia deposed that on the date of the occurrence, she took out an apple from fridge. While lying on the bed, she was eating it. In the meanwhile, appellant came and caught hold of her. He pulled her pyjami down and unzipped his pants. He then took out his penis and inserted the same in her vagina. He also kissed her on her cheeks and forehead. She started crying. In the meanwhile, her mother came there. She pulled him away and also slapped him. Appellant is present in the Court. He is a bad man. Her statement Ex.PA having her signature was recorded by a Judge. She was also medico-legally examined at BKH Hospital, Faridabad. 11.2 The complainant has been examined by the prosecution as witness No.2. In her examination-in-chief, she has inter alia deposed that she is working in a private firm at Faridabad. On 08.12.2014, after completion of her duty at about 5.30 p.m., when she SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -7- reached her house at about 6.00 p.m., she heard her daughter. She reached the room thereof and saw that its door was slightly closed and had a curtain in between. She pushed the door and entered in it. She saw that the prosecutrix was naked. Appellant was also not wearing his pants. He was lying on her daughter. She caught hold of the appellant from his collar and gave him 2/3 slaps. She then enquired from her daughter aged about 7 years. The prosecutrix told that the appellant had inserted his penis in her vagina after removing her pyjami. She also told her that he kissed her cheeks and forehead because of which she was crying. After some time, brother of the complainant came there. She narrated the entire incident to him and then intimated the police. After some time, police reached there with a Legal-Aid-Counsel, in whose presence, statement Ex.PB of the said witness was recorded which bears her signature. Her statement Ex.PC was also recorded by the concerned Magistrate. The accused is present in the Court. Her daughter was also medico-legally examined at BKH Hospital, Faridabad. 11.3 Witness No.3, Constable Jasbir Singh, in his affidavit PW3/A, has inter alia deposed that on 11.12.2014, MHC Balwan Kumar of Police Station had delivered the case property to him for deposit to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. He deposited the same at Madhuban receipt whereof was given by him to the said MHC. SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -8- 11.4 Witness No.4, Head Constable Ram Niwas, in his examination-in-chief, has inter alia deposed that on 08.12.2014, he was deputed to deliver special reports of the FIR to the Learned Area Magistrate and higher police officers. He delivered the same to them without delay on his part. 11.5 Witness No.5, Rampal, Principal, in his examination-in- chief, has inter alia deposed that he has brought Admission & Withdrawal Register of his school. As per record, name of the prosecutrix is mentioned at Sr.No.1140 dated 29.09.2014 of the said register showing her date of birth as 27.07.2007. Attested copy of the said register is Ex.PD. He also issued a birth certificate Ex.PE of the prosecutrix. 11.6 Witness No.6, PSI Neeraj Kumar, in his examination-in- chief, has inter alia deposed that on 08.12.2014, when he was posted as such in Police Station Suraj Kund at Faridabad, on receipt of a writing Ex.PB signed by LSI Raj Rani, he recorded FIR Ex.PB/1 and made endorsement Ex.PB/2 thereon. 11.7 Witness No.7, ASI Anoj Kumar, in his examination-in- chief, has inter alia deposed that on 11.12.2014, he was posted as a Draftsman in Crime Branch, Faridabad. On that date, he visited the spot on the direction and demarcation of SI Raj Rani and prepared scaled site-plan Ex.PF with marginal notes. It bears his signature. 11.8 Witness No.8, LSI Raj Rani, in her examination-in-chief, has inter alia deposed that on 08.12.2014, she was posted as SI in SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -9- Women Cell, Faridabad. On that date, after receipt of telephonic message from one official of Police Post Greenfields, she reached there. She came to know that all police personnels had gone to the place of occurrence. She then went there. PSI Basant Kumar etc. met her there. The complainant and the prosecutrix as well as brother “B” of the complainant also met her there. She recorded statement of the complainant in the presence of Legal-Aid-Counsel. On such statement, she made endorsement Ex.PB/3 and sent it to Police Station for registration of a case. She also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared rough site-plan thereof. The appellant was arrested from the spot. He was interrogated then and there. He made a disclosure statement Ex.PH. In consequence to his disclosure statement, he got the place of occurrence demarcated vide memo Ex.PH/1. Such memos were signed by the appellant and were witnessed by Constable Jasbir. The prosecutrix and the appellant were then got medico-legally examined from BKH Hospital, Faridabad. After medico-legal examination of the appellant, she took copy of the MLR, a sealed parcel containing his underwear, a sealed envelope containing some documents along with sample seal into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. After medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix, she took into police possession one sealed vial containing two vaginal swabs, copy of MLR, a sealed envelope containing some papers and sample seal vide recovery memo Ex.PK. On 09.12.2014, the prosecutrix and the complainant SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -10- were produced before the concerned Magistrate for their statements under Section 164 of the 1973 Code. On 30.12.2014, she went to Sonia Public School and from its Principal, took into possession date of birth certificate Ex.PI of the prosecutrix. Recovery memo is Ex.PE. Appellant is present in Court. She had deposited the case property with MHC of Police Station Suraj Kund and had also recorded the statements of witnesses from time to time. On 02.01.2015, on completion of investigation of the case, SHO Narinder Kumar prepared final report under Section 173 of the 1973 Code. She identifies his signature as she has worked with him. 11.9 Witness No.9, HC Balwant Singh stated in his affidavit Ex.PW9/A that on the date of occurrence i.e. 08.12.2014, L/SI Raj Rani deposited the case property with him which was sent by him to FSL Madhuban through Constable Jasbir. 11.10 Witness No.10, Dr.Rajni Chauhan, in her examination-in- chief, has inter alia deposed that on 08.12.2014, she medico-legally examined the prosecutrix at 11.36 p.m. Prosecutrix was brought by the police and was accompanying the complainant. She had a history of sexual assault (alleged history of sodomy and forcible vaginal penetration) on 08.12.2014 at 6.00 p.m. She was found conscious and oriented. Her hymen was intact but inflammation was present around vaginal introitos. Said witness had given sealed vial of one vaginal and one anal swab and also a sealed pulinda of orange colour containing under-garment of the prosecutrix to the police for deposit SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -11- to FSL. MLR prepared by her is Ex.PM and contains her signature as well as that of SI Raj Rani who had put her signature thereon in her presence. 11.11 Witness No.11, Dr.Rohit Gaur, in his affidavit PW11/A, has inter alia deposed that on 08.12.2015 at 11.50 p.m., he medico- legally examined the appellant who was brought by the police for such examination in connection with FIR of the present case. There was alleged history of sexual assault by him. He was averagely built and nourished. He was wearing orange coloured undergarment, grey coloured pants, white and blue coloured T-shirt and a dark-green coloured sweater. He was conscious and oriented to time, place and person. His secondary sexual characters i.e. auxilliary hair, moustache, beard and hair all over the body were normally grown and developed. His sexual characters i.e. penis, B/L testes and scrotum were normally grown and developed. On stimulation normal erection of penis took place. Cremastrix reflex was present. He had no fresh mark of injury and no stain marks were present locally. His undergarments were sealed in a white cloth packet and were handed- over to police. Parcel containing his undergarments, a copy of his MLR, a sample seal and a sealed envelope were handed over by the said witness to the police for deposit to FSL Madhuban. In his opinion, nothing was found suggesting that the appellant was not capable of performing sexual intercourse. SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -12- 12. Having summarized the prosecution evidence, we may notice that in the present case, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 376 of the 1860 Code and Section 4 of 2012 Act. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether prosecution has proved commission of said offences against the appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Section 375 of the 1860 Code defines the offence of rape whereas Section 3 of the 2012 Act defines the offence of penetrative sexual assault. 13. We may now observe that the prosecution has examined only the prosecutrix and the complainant as eye-witnesses of the occurrence in question. However, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that their depositions have not been corroborated by any other witness and therefore, appellant could not have been convicted/sentenced on the basis of their uncorroborated depositions. In view of such contention, it will be necessary to first of all examine as to whether statement of the prosecutrix in the present case was required to be corroborated by any other person. It shall also have to be examined as to whether statement of the complainant as witness No.2 shall amount to corroboration of statement of the prosecutrix. So far as first issue is concerned, facts/circumstances of the present case show that it is an offence of rape/penetrative sexual assault committed on the prosecutrix, a child aged 7 years. Earlier, statement of a victim of rape used to be treated as that of an accomplice requiring corroboration. However, in “Rameshwar Vs. State of SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -13- Rajasthan”, AIR 1952 SC 54, about such corroboration of statement of a prosecutrix, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the rule, which according to the cases, has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the Judge. In “Krishan Lal Vs. State of Haryana”, (1980) 3 SCC 159, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that to demand substantial corroboration of statement of such a victim amounts to sacrificing common-sense in favour of an artificial concoction called ‘judicial probability’ and the Court looses its credibility if it rebels against realism. In “Rafiq Vs. State of U.P.”, (1980) 4 SCC 262, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed inter-alia that if taken as a whole, the case spoken by the victim strikes a judicial mind as probable, the Court cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative testimony. In “Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat”, (1983) 3 SCC 217, the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are most relevant to be referred to:- “2. The need of the hour is to mould and evolve the law so as to make it more sensitive and responsive to the demands of the time in order to resolve the basic problem: "Whether, when, and to what extent corroboration to the testimony of a victim of rape is essential to establish the charge." And the problem has special significance for the women in India, for, while they have often been idolized, adored, and even SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -14- worshipped, for ages they have also been exploited and denied even handed justice-Sixty crores anxious eyes of Indian women are therefore focussed on this problem. …. xxxx xxxx xxxx 9. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. We must analyze the argument in support of the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless cross-examination. And we must do so with a logical, and not an opiniated, eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focussed on the Indian horizon….. xxxx xxxx xxxx 10. ……Without the fear of making too wide a statement or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural Society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because: (1) A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non- permissive Society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the Society or being looked down by the Society including by her own family SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -15- members, relatives, friends and neighbours. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being over powered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex is taboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband's family of a married woman would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence. (12) The reluctance to face interrogation by the investigating agency, to face the court, to face the cross examination by Counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent. 11. In view of these factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to books. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. On principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self inflicted) is the best witness in SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -16- the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex-offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eye witness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rules devised by the courts in the Western World (obseisance to which has perhaps become a habit presumably on account of the colonial hangover). We are therefore of the opinion that if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the ‘probabilities-factor’ does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming, subject to the following qualification: Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having levelled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self- preservation. Or when the 'probabilities-factor' is found to be out of tune.” 14. In “State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain”, (1990) 1 SCC 550, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put at par with an accomplice as she is infact a victim of the crime and further that there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which requires the court to look for corroboration of her statement. It was also observed that if the Court is hesitant to place SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -17- implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The decision in “State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh”, (1996) 2 SCC 384, reiterated the above stated observations by stating that seeking corroboration of statement of a sex victim before relying upon the same amounts to adding insult to her injury and corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. It was also observed that inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Same principles were reiterated in “State of Rajasthan versus N.K.”, (2000) 5 SCC 30 while referring to Rameshwar’s decision (supra), Sidheshwar Ganguly Vs. The State of West Bengal”, AIR 1958 SC 143, Madhoram & another Vs. State of U.P.”, (1973) 1 SCC 533, State of Maharashtra (supra), “Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey and another”, (1992) 3 SCC 204, “State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Narayan”, AIR 1992 (3) SCC 615, “Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P.”, 1995 (5) SCC 518, “Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs. Miss Subhra Chakraborty”, 1996 (1) SCC 490 & Gurmit Singh (supra). In “Aman Kumar and another Versus State of Haryana”, (2004) 4 SCC 379, it was observed that fast sweeping changes introduced in law reflect the SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -18- legislative intent to curb the offence of rape with an iron hand as it is an obnoxious act of the highest order. In “State of H.P.Vs. Shree Kant Shekari”, (2004) 8 SCC 153, in respect of an offence of rape and/or sexual violence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “3. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys, as noted by this Court in Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty (AIR 1996 SC 922), the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -19- long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos.” 15. The said observations were reiterated in “Dinesh Vs. State of Rajasthan” (2006) 3 SCC 771 and “Om Parkash versus State of U.P.”, (2006) 9 SCC 787. In “Vijay Vs. State of M.P.”, (2010) 8 SCC 191, the Hon’ble Supreme Court summed up the position in respect of evidentiary value of testimony of a rape victim in the following words:- “14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.” 16. In Madan Gopal Kakkad’s report (supra), in respect of sexual assault on female children, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “57.……… though all sexual assaults on female children are not reported and do not come to light yet there is an alarming and shocking increase of sexual offences committed on children. This is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of rape and are not able to offer resistance and become easy prey for lusty brutes who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls. Therefore, such offenders who are menace to the civilised society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms.” 17. In “Nawabuddin Vs. State of Uttrakhand”, (2022) 5 SCC 419, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring to aims and objects of the 2012 Act, observed as under :- SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -20- “18. Children are precious human resources of our country; they are the country’s future. The hope of tomorrow rests on them. But unfortunately, in our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position. There are different modes of her exploitation, including sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. In our view, exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and the society. Therefore, the children and more particularly the girl child deserve full protection and need greater care and protection whether in the urban or rural areas. 19. As observed and held by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, children need special care and protection and, in such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. In the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, it is observed by this Court that a minor who is subjected to sexual abuse needs to be protected even more than a major victim because a major victim being an adult may still be able to withstand the social ostracization and mental harassment meted out by society, but a minor victim will find it difficult to do so. Most crimes against minor victims are not even reported as very often, the perpetrator of the crime is a member of the family of the victim or a close friend. Therefore, the child needs extra protection. Therefore, no leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law. 20. In the present case it is to be noted that the accused was aged approximately 65 years of age at the time of commission of offence. He was a neighbour of the victim girl. He took advantage of the absence of her parents, when her mother went to fetch water and her father had gone to work. He is SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -21- found to have committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault (as observed hereinabove) on a girl child aged four years, which demonstrates the mental state or mindset of the accused. As a neighbour, in fact, it was the duty of the accused to protect the victim girl when alone rather than exploiting her innocence and vulnerability. The victim was barely a four years girl. The accused –appellant was the neighbour. The accused instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child against the evils of the society, rather made her the victim of lust. It is a case where trust has been betrayed and social values are impaired. Therefore, the accused as such does not deserve any sympathy and/or any leniency.” 18. Applying the said observations, which till date hold the field and have been reiterated time and again, to the present case, we may state that in her deposition before the Court, the prosecutrix has categorically stated that when she was eating apple while lying on the bed, the appellant came and caught hold of her. She also deposed that the appellant pulled down her pyjami and unzipped his pants whereafter he took out his penis and inserted the same into her vagina. She further deposes that the appellant also kissed her on her cheeks and her forehead because of which she started crying and in the meanwhile her mother (complainant) came there and pulled the appellant away and then gave him two slaps. She identified the appellant in the Court as the person who committed the said acts on her. She has also deposed categorically that her statement Ex.PA was recorded by a Judge and it contains her signatures. If cross- examination conducted on her is perused, there is nothing to SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -22- disbelieve her in respect of her such deposition. She has categorically denied that the appellant never visited her house and she was deposing before the Court as per the dictate of her mother. At the time of her examination, she was a 7 years old child. In her statement Ex.PA also, she categorically stated that the appellant put off her pants and opened his zip and then touched her toilet part. Despite the fact that statement Ex.PA was recorded on 09.12.2014 and her deposition before the Court was recorded on 09.03.2015, she categorically deposed that the appellant took out his penis and inserted the same into her vagina. To that extent, her veracity could not be impeached or discredited either in her cross-examination or in any other manner. Her such deposition is reliable and worthy of credence. It is firm and trustworthy. It also shows that she had a clear understanding. She had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Plea of false implication, in the facts/circumstances of the present case, is not borne out from her testimony. As a whole, the case spoken by the prosecutrix is probable. There are no special circumstances in the present case calling for greater caution requiring independent evidence lending assurance to the deposition of the prosecutrix. Her deposition, therefore, deserves to be accepted. Once it is accepted, in terms of the observations made in the above referred to reports, it’s corroboration is not at all required. It is rather self-sufficient to prove the said facts in the present case. Witness No.5 Rampal and contents of the documents Ex.PD and Ex.PE (date SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -23- of birth certificate) proved by him establish that on the date of the occurrence in question, the prosecutrix was a minor aged 7 years, her date of birth being 27.07.2007. In such circumstances, it was utmost duty of the appellant to safeguard the prosecutrix from all evils. However, instead of doing so, by taking undue advantage of her tender age, he committed the above stated acts on her. 19. True it is that the appellant has contended that the prosecutrix has not been corroborated in the present case by an independent witness. At the same time, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant (mother of the prosecutrix) has to be treated as an independent witness. When the complainant appeared before the Court, she categorically deposed that on the above-stated date and time, when she reached her house, she heard the prosecutrix because of which she rushed to the room and saw that doors thereof were slightly closed and the curtain was drawn. She further deposed that she pushed the door of the room and entered and saw that the prosecutrix was naked whereas the appellant was lying on the prosecutrix. She has reiterated everything stated by her in her statement Ex.PB and Ex.PC during investigation. If cross- examination conducted on her is also perused, we do not find anything in the same improbabilising or falsifying her deposition made before the Court in examination-in-chief. Her veracity in respect thereof could not at all also be impeached or discredited. If her examination is treated as a whole, it comes out that she reached SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -24- the spot all of a sudden and saw the appellant lying on the prosecutrix. Her deposition also establishes that immediately thereafter, the prosecutrix told her that the appellant had inserted his penis into her vagina after removing her pyjami and had also kissed her cheeks and forehead because of which, she was crying. May be that the appellant has contended that he has been falsely implicated to extract money. At the same time, there is nothing on record in that regard. The said defence was taken by the appellant at the last stage of the trial in question. There is not even a suggestion either to the prosecutrix or to the complainant in this regard in their cross- examinations. The complainant would have been the last person to falsely implicate the appellant by sparing the person actually responsible for commission of the offences in question by putting future of her 7 years old daughter at stake. In fact, if deposition of the complainant is perused minutely, she turns out to be an eye- witness of the occurrence and has corroborated the deposition of the prosecutrix on all material particulars. Therefore, although deposition of the prosecutrix did not require corroboration in the present case, yet, even if it would have required the same, deposition of the complainant corroborates her in that regard. No other person is stated to be present in the room in question when the occurrence took place. In view thereof, no such person could have been produced by the prosecution in support of its case. Two of the persons present in the said room have categorically deposed against the appellant. The third SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -25- person present when the occurrence in question took place was the appellant himself. If the depositions of the prosecutrix and the complainant are perused in true sense thereof the same do not require any corroboration or support from any other person especially when no other person was present in the said room at the time of the occurrence in question. Their depositions, rather, assure us that they have put forth a true account of the occurrence before the Court. 20. It has also been contended that even if the depositions of the prosecutrix and the complainant are taken at face value thereof, no offence of rape/penetrative sexual assault is made out against the appellant. However, as is evident from the definition of rape/penetrative sexual assault contained in the above-stated provisions, penetration of penis to any extent into the vagina of a girl under 18 years of age with or without her consent amounts to commission of the said offences. The occurrence in question took place on 08.12.2014 whereas Section 375 of the 1860 Code was amended in the year 2013 and the amended definition of rape was brought into force w.e.f. 03.02.2013. Therefore, on the date of the occurrence in question, the said amended definition of rape was in force. Definition of penetrative sexual assault was also in force on the date of the occurrence in question. In view of the said definitions, the above deposed act of the appellant in inserting his penis into vagina of the prosecutrix amounts to the offence of rape/penetrative sexual assault. Further, Modi’s Edition of Medical Jurisprudence and SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -26- Taxicology (22nd Edn.), in respect of commission of offence of rape, records as under: “Thus, to constitute the offence of rape, it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the law. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally, the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In such a case, the medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape is a crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is to the effect whether there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one.” 21. Similarly in Parikh’s Edition of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, sexual intercourse has been defined as under: “Sexual intercourse.- In law, this term is held to mean the slightest degree of penetration of the vulva by the penis with or without emission of semen. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains.” 22. Still more, in Madan Gopal Kakkad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “44. In interpreting the above explanation whether complete penetration is necessary to constitute an offence of rape, various High Courts have taken a consistant view that even the slightest penetration is sufficient to make out an offence of SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -27- rape and the depth of penetration is immaterial. Reference may be made to (1) Natha v. Emperor, (2) Abdul Majid v. Emperor, (3) Mst. Jantan v. Emperor, (4) Ghanashyam Mishra v. State, (5) Das Bernard v. State. In re Anthony, it has been held that while there must be penetration in the technical sense, the slightest penetration would be sufficient and a complete act of sexual intercourse is not at all necessary. In Gour's The Penal Law of India, 6th Edn. 1955 (Vol. II) Page 1678, it is observed, "Even vulval penetration has been held to be sufficient for a conviction of rape." 23. If the above observations are applied to the present case, act of the appellant in inserting his penis into the vagina of the prosecutrix amounts to an offence of rape/penetrative sexual assault defined under Section 375 of the 1860 Code and Section 3 of the 2012 Act. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, in that regard, therefore, have no substance and cannot be accepted. 24. So far as medical evidence is concerned, deposition of witness No.10 Dr.Rajni Chauhan establishes medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix by her on the date of occurrence in question at about 11.36 p.m. In her cross-examination, she is categoric that history of the case was told by the prosecturix and not by the police and the police requested her to conduct examination of the prosecutrix. She is also categoric that the type of injuries detected on the prosecutrix cannot be caused if one is playing sports. She has also proved that she took the underwear of the prosecutrix into possession and after sealing it handed it over to the police. Deposition of witness No.11 Dr.Rohit Gaur has extablished medico- SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -28- legal examination of the appellant on 08.12.2014 itself. He also proves that undergarment of the appellant was taken by him in possession and was handed over to the police. Deposition of witness No.8 LSI Raj Rani establishes that the said parcels etc. were taken into police possession through recovery memos Ex.PJ and Ex.PK respectively. Her deposition also establishes that she deposited the said case property with MHC of Police Station Suraj Kund. Witness No.9 HC Balwant Singh has corroborated her in that regard. He also says that the case property deposited with him on 08.12.2014 was handed-over to witness No.3 Constable Jasbir Singh for deposit to FSL, Madhuban. Constable Jasbir Singh has proved that the case property handed-over to him was deposited in the said laboratory on 11.12.2014 and till the time it remained in his possession it was not tampered with. FSL report Ex.PX establishes that human semen was detected on underwear of the prosecutrix and undergarment/nikkar of the appellant. It also establishes that the sealed parcels delivered in the laboratory were intact and tallied with the specimen seal as per letter of the forwarding authority. May be that there is no DNA profiling of the semen detected on the said clothes. At the same time, the same were taken in possession after the occurrence in question at the time of medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix and the appellant. There is no other explanation on record justifying detection of semen on clothes of the prosecutrix and the appellant. Deposition of witness No.10 Dr.Rajni Chauhan is categoric that SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -29- inflammation was present around vaginal introitus of the prosecutrix. Presence of the said inflammation in her medico-legal examination also corroborates the prosecutrix when she says that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina because of which she was screaming. In “State of H.P. Vs. Gian Chand”, (2001) 6 SCC 71, spermatozoa was not discovered in private parts of the victim and it was contended that offence thereof did not establish penetration. The said contention was turned down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision in the following words:- “15. The observations made and noted by Dr. Mudita Gupta during medico legal examination of PW7 clearly make out the prosecutrix having been subjected to rape. The prosecutrix has spoken of penetration in her statement. The discovery of spermatozoa in the private part of the victim is not a must to establish penetration. There are several factors which may negative the presence of spermatozoa. (See - Narayanamma Vs. State of Karnataka). Slightest penetration of penis into vagina without rupturing the hymen would constitute rape (See - Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey). The suggestion made in the cross examination of Dr. Mudita Gupta that injury of the nature found on hymen of prosecutrix could be caused by a fall does not lead us anywhere. Firstly, no such suggestion was given to prosecutrix or her mother during cross examination. Secondly, why would the girl or her mother implicate the accused, charging him with rape, if the injury was caused by a fall? There is nothing to draw such an inference not even a suggestion, to be found on record. Answer to the suggestion made to Dr. Gupta cannot discredit the prosecution case in the absence of any other material to support the suggestion. So is the case with SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -30- absence of external marks of violence on the body of the victim. In case of children who are incapable of offering any resistance external marks of violence may not be found. (See Modis Medical Jurisprudence, 22nd Edn., p.502). It is true that marks of external injury have not been found on the person of the accused but that by itself does not negate the prosecution case. Modi has opined (see, Modi ibid, page 509) that even in the case of a child victim being ravished by a grown up person it is not necessary that there should always be marks of injuries on the penis in such cases. …..” 25. Reliance in this regard can also be had to the decision “Ranjit Hazarika Vs. State of Assam”, (1998) 8 SCC 635 and “Lok Mal @ Loku Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh”, AIR 2025 SC 1437. In view of the above, non-rupturing of the hymen of the prosecutrix is inconsequential in the present case. Rather, inflammation present around her vaginal introitus if correlated to her deposition, proves the offence of rape/penetrative sexual assault by the appellant. Therefore, medical evidence produced in the present case also corroborates the prosecutrix and the complainant when they say that the appellant committed rape/penetrative sexual assault on the prosecutrix. Arguments to the contrary, therefore, have no substance. The prosecution has therefore proved the charge under Section 376 of the 1860 Code and Section 4 of the 2012 Act against the appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. 26. At the same time, the appellant was chargesheeted in the present case under Section 376 of the 1860 Code as well as Section 4 SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -31- of the 2012 Act whereas Section 42 of the 2012 Act provides as under :- “42. Alternate punishment.— Where an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under sections 166A, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 370, 370A, 375, 376, [376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB], [376E, section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000(21 of 2000)], then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree.” 27. On the date of the occurrence in question, punishment provided by Section 376 of the 1860 Code was greater than the punishment provided by Section 4 of the 2012 Act. In view thereof, although the appellant was convicted by the Learned Sessions Court for both of the said offences, yet, in terms of the said section, he was liable to be sentenced under Section 376 of the 1860 Code. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Learned Sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant under both the above stated sections by correctly appreciating the evidence on record but has ignored provisions contained in Section 42 of the 2012 Act while sentencing the appellant under section 4 of the said Act also. In view thereof, sentence imposed on the appellant under the said section cannot be legally sustained. To the said extent, the impugned order of sentence deserves to be modified. The impugned judgment of conviction, SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left CRA-D-1413-2015 (O&M) -32- however, for what has been pointed out above, does not call for interference in appeal. It is accordingly confirmed. Sentences imposed by the impugned order on the appellant under Section 4 of the 2012 Act, at the same time, is set aside but sentences imposed on him under Section 376 of the 1860 Code, since the same have been appropriately imposed, are confirmed. Present appeal is partly allowed in the above stated terms. 28. No other argument was addressed. 29. Pending applications, if any, are disposed off. 30. Since the present appeal was filed through a Legal Aid Counsel and the appellant is stated to be in custody, a copy of the present judgment be delivered to the appellant through Superintendent of District Jail, Faridabad free of cost. (ALKA SARIN) (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) JUDGE JUDGE May 18, 2026 sailesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No SAILESH RANJAN 2026.05.18 19:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left