Reserved on : 15/04/2025 Pronounced on : 09.06.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.A.No. 1046 of 2008 Mohd. Shamim, S/o. Shankur Ali, aged about - 25 years, R/o. Village-Basen, P.S. - Rajpur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Prabhari Arakshi Grih, A.J.K., Ambikapur, Distt.- Sarguja(C.G.) --- Respondent ______________________________________________________________ For the Appellant :Shri N.K. Mehta, Advocate . For State / Respondent :Shri Devesh G. Kela, P.L. ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Judgment 1. This appeal filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07/06/2008 passed by the II Additional Session Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Surguja, District – Ambikapur (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 12/2002 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner : Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 (1) of I.P.C R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for 01 month Under Section 450 of I.P.C R.I. for 03 years and fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for 01 month Both the sentence to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the prosecutrix PW/1 is a member of ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.06.09 17:16:49 +0530 -2- Scheduled Tribe. The appellant is not a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. On the date of incident i.e. 29.10.2001, the prosecutrix was at her residence – Kododipabasen. At 06:00 PM, the appellant came to her house and asked about her husband. It was informed that her husband is at his Shop. At about 11:00 PM, the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house and at that time appellant removing the door plank, entered her house and committed rape upon her. On being shouted, the uncle and father-in-law of the prosecutrix came there and at that time the appellant ran away. Prosecutrix informed about the incident to the Village Sarpanch – Dashrathram and his Brother-in-Law – Tulsiram. On 31/10/2001, the husband of the prosecutrix came back who was informed about the incident and on the same day the incident was reported to the Police Station – Rajpur. Later on the case was investigated by the Police Station – AJAK, Ambikapur. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur who committed the case to the trial Court. 3. The appellant was charged for offence punishable under sections 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 376(1) and 450 of the IPC. He denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In order prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents and one article (A). 5. The statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication. 6. The learned trial court after assessment of the evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above in the first paragraph of the judgment which led to filing of this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution was unable to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence brought before it to proper perspective and erroneously -3- gave a finding of conviction against the appellant. He submits that the story putforth by the prosecution appears to be unreasonable and prosecutrix being a major lady, her husband was out of town, and it appears to be a case of consent. There is a delay in lodging the FIR and medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution, therefore, the appeal may be allow and the appellant may be acquitted from all the charges. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submits that the conviction of the appellant is based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence. He submits that the prosecutrix in her statement categorically deposed against the appellant. He further submits that simply because there is a delay in lodging the FIR and medical evidence does not support the case, and it could lead to the acquittal of the appellant. He submits that the delay is properly explained and the appellant took advantage of the fact that husband of prosecutrix was there and entered the house in committed sexual intercourse. Meritorious finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court does not require any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. It is settled proposition of law that the conviction can sustain on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix, if it inspire confidence, is credible, impeccable and the prosecutrix can passed the test of sterling witness. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 34, in paragraphs 6 and 7, it is observed and held as under: “6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or -4- insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults. [See State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384] (SCC p. 403, para 21).] 7. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the -5- tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. (See Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635).” 12. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and ors, (2019) 11 SCC 575 it is observed and held in paragraph 29 as under: “29. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. [Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283]. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. 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 medical -6- evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. . [State of Rajasthan v. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30].” 13. In a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 2 SCC 74 considering various case laws on the point that conviction can rest on the sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence held in paragraph 11 as under :- “11. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained.” 14. In light of the above, it is well settled position of law, the statement of the prosecutrix requires to be scrutinized with great caution and care. Prosecutrix in this case is examined (PW-1). In her statement before the Court she has vividly described the happening of the incident, she has stated that at bout 06:00 PM, the appellant came to her house and asked about her husband and it was informed that her husband had gone to shop. She further deposed that after the children have left after taking the meal, she closed the door from inside. She further deposed at 11:00 PM, the appellant came and broke open the plank of the door and entered inside the house of the prosecutrix and committed forcibly sexual intercourse without her consent. She has further deposed that on being shouted she was filthily abused. She further deposed that when appellant came inside the house, the lamp was burning and in -7- light she could identified the appellant. She further deposed during the course she was subjected to sexual intercourse, her father-in-law (Fufa Sasur) came and saw the appellant going and after seeing him the appellant ran away. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. These are some omission in the Police statement of prosecution, however, those are not of glaring nature to discard the entire testimony of the prosecutrix. The incident is of 29.10.2001 at 11:00 PM and the FIR was lodged on 31.10.2001 at 14:30 hrs. The explanation of delay is given as husband was out of house. Named FIR is lodged against the appellant. The prosecutrix is residing in Village and she has informed about the incident to Sarpanch Dashrath and brother- in-law (jeth) Tulsiram. Of Course Dr. Smt. Kiran Bhajgnwali did not find any internal & external injuries, however, in the slides prepared by her of prosecutrix, human sperms were found as per FSL report (Ex.P-19). Hence, taking into consideration the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court found appellant guilty of the offences. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence. In light of above and also placing reliance upon the judgment cited above that the prosecutrix has passed the test of sterling witness. Therefore, appeal fails and dismissed. As per report received from Office of Jail Superintendent, Central jail, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) dated 15/04/2025, the appellant has been released after completion of sentence on 03.02.2013. Hence, he need not surrender. Order accordingly. 15. Copy of this judgment with record be sent back to trial Court for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish