1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1314 of 2003 Santosh Kumar S/o. Nand Lal Soni, aged about 30 years, Occupation Driver R/o. Deepadih, P.S. shankar Garh, District Sarguja, CG. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anjiv Kumar Singh, Advocate For State : Ms. Neeta Tulsiyani, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 09/06/2025 Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 22.11.2003 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 60/2003 by the Special Court, Ambikapur, CG constituted under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned below:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 IPC RI for 3 year Under Section 366 IPC RI for 4 year Under Section 376 IPC RI for 7 year 2 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the appellant allured away the prosecutrix (PW-1) belonging to scheduled caste category in a Jeep in the name of giving sweets to Lucci (jangal) forest and committed sexual intercourse without her consent and against her will. The incident was reported to the police station Ambikapur and then the prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Sarita Singh (PW-5) who gave her report (Ex. P-5). The vaginal slides of the prosecutrix and other articles like her undergarments were seized and sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. The appellant was arrested and he too was medically examined by Dr. Azad Bhagat (PW-6) who gave his report (Ex. P-7). After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Special Act) followed by framing of charge accordingly. 3. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where he pleaded his innocence, false implication in the case and claimed trial. 4. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 3(2)(5) of special Act but has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court itself has recorded a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the prosecutrix being below 11 years of age and therefore, the conviction of the accused/appellant is bad in law. He further submits that the statement of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence as there are several contradictions and omissions in her Court statement if compared to her police statement. He further submits that though the prosecutrix is said to have been taken by the appellant in a Jeep but there is nothing on record to show that she raised any alarm during the said period, which is suggestive of the fact that she was a consenting party. He thus submits that in view of such a shaky evidence, the finding of conviction recorded is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned 3 and submits the same to be in accordance with law and based on due appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. She further submits that though the trial Court did not find the prosecutrix to be below 11 years of age yet it does not give a right to the accused/appellant to commit forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. She further submits that the prosecutrix has categorically deposed as to the manner in which she was allured away by the accused/appellant and subjected to sexual intercourse by him, and in these circumstances his conviction as has been detailed above cannot be said to be contrary to the law and evidence on record, particularly when her deposition finds full corroboration by the medical evidence which speaks of injuries, internal and external, on the person of the prosecutrix. It is thus submitted by the counsel for the respondent/State that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are in conformity with the evidence on record particularly that of the prosecutrix and therefore, no interference with the same is called for in this appeal. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. To establish the guilt or innocence of the accused/appellant in the offences as in the present case, it is a settled legal position that evidence of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient provided it is of sterling quality and inspires confidence of the Court, and no other corroboration is necessary to do so. Thus moving ahead in the line of such settled legal position, this Court first prefers to look into the evidence of the prosecutrix. A close look of her testimony goes to show that on the date of incident at about 12 Noon when she was returning home from the school, the accused/appellant met her near Gurudwara and asked her to accompany him on the pretext of giving her sweets. Thereafter, he gagged her mouth, made her board the Jeep and thus took her to Luchki Ghat where after undressing himself he did bad work with her. Specifying further she has stated that after making her lie, the accused/appellant removed his pant and inserted his private part into that of her. She has stated that the forcible penetration by the accused/appellant caused her severe pain including bleeding from her private part. Not only this, he also slapped on her cheek, put her to fear and then after putting her in the Jeep he dropped her near Basant Talkies from where she went to her house after hiring a rickshaw and described the incident to her parents and 4 maternal uncle. Thereafter, she went to the police station along with her mother and lodged the report (Ex. P-1) followed by her medically examination. In cross-examination also she remained consistent to the version made in examination-in-chief. Statement of the prosecutrix gets full corroboration from her mother Devantin Devi (PW-2) who has stated that the prosecutrix had informed her as to the manner in which she was taken by the accused/appellant to Luchki Ghat in a Jeep and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She also noticed the blood stains on the white colour skirt worn by the victim and on being asked she gave a detailed depiction of the entire incident which she came across at the hand of the accused/appellant. This witness has also stated that after coming to know about the incident from the victim she took her to the police station and after lodging the report she was also subjected to medical examination. The other important witness who has corroborated the case of the prosecution is the doctor (PW-5) who medically examined the prosecutrix and gave her report Ex. P-5. She has stated that the secondary sexual charterer of the prosecutrix were not developed; an abrasion was present on the left cheek in the size of 1x1/2 CM. She has further stated that pubic hair of the prosecutrix was also not developed; her hymen was ruptured and on being touched her private part was bleeding and she was complaining pain thereon. 9. From the evidence of the prosecutrix which gets full corroboration from that of her mother PW-2 and the doctor PW-5 who medically examined her, it is well established that the accused/appellant after taking the prosecutrix to an isolated place after gagging her mouth and putting her in the Jeep where after undressing himself committed forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. It is also evident that the accused/appellant slapped on the left cheek of the prosecutrix and after satisfying his perverted desire he again brought her in the Jeep to the Basant Talkies from where she reached home by hiring a rickshaw. Having subjected the evidence of the prosecutrix to detailed analysis the same appears to be quite trustworthy and inspires full confidence of this Court. Needless to say her deposition finds complete corroboration from her mother PW-2 and the doctor PW-5. That being the sufficient evidence to hold the accused/appellant guilty, this Court is not required to look for any other corroborative evidence. 5 10. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and so also the trial Court has also made a proper assessment of the same while recording the finding of conviction against the accused/appellant. Accordingly, the well founded judgment does not call for any meddling by this Court in this appeal. It is thus meritless and dismissed as such with affirmation of the judgment impugned. 11. The appellant is reported to be on bail his bail bond is canceled and therefore, let he be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the remainder of the sentence. Seized property if any be disposed of in terms of trial Court judgment. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan