1 2025:CGHC:4131 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 811 of 2019 1 - Dhaniram @ Sunny S/o Santuram Dhruv Aged About 18 Years 3 Months, R/o Sirri, Outpost - Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Outpost Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. C.S. Deo, Panel Lawer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 22.01.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28-03-2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, (FTC), Dhamtari, in Special Criminal Case No. 125/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:- 2 S. No. Conviction Sentence 1. Under Section 376 (2) of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further S.I. for 6 months. 2. Under Section 6 of POCSO Act. R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further S.I. for 6 months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25-08-2018, the P.W. 3, the father of the victim, has lodged a written report (Ex. P-2) to the police outpost Birejhar, District Dhamtari, with the allegation that on 24-08-2018 his minor daughter has disclosed to her mother that after 2-3 days of the opening of the school, at about 10.00 am, when she was going to school, on the way to school, the appellant allured her on the pretext of giving money and committed rape with her inside his house. Due to fear, she could not disclose the incident to anyone. The incident was witnessed by another student of the school, who started teasing her that she would tell the incident to her mother. Thereafter, she disclosed the incident to her mother and then the report was lodged. The unnumbered FIR (Ex. P-3) has been registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 376AB of the IPC. 3. The victim was sent for her medical examination to the Civil Hospital, Kurud, where Dr. (Smt.) Saroj Deewan (P.W. 11) examined her and gave her report Ex. P-12. While examining the victim, the doctor did not notice any external injuries on her body and opined that the findings suggestive of there is no evidence of recent sexual assault/act. The victim referred to the gynecologist for expert opinion. Spot map Ex. P-4 was prepared by the police and Ex. P-19 was prepared by the Patwari. The birth certificate of the victim has been seized from the father of the 3 victim vide seizure memo Ex. P-8 in which the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 15-04-2011. The numbered FIR Ex.P-11 was registered at Police Station Kurud, for the offence under Section 376AB of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “the POCSO Act”). The appellant was arrested on 26-08-2018, and he too was sent for his medical examination to Civil Hospital, Kurud, where Dr. U. S. Navratna (P.W. 5) examined him and found him capable of performing sexual intercourse and gave his report Ex.P-10. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded, and after completion of the usual investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the learned trial court, for the offence under Sections 376AB of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 4. The learned trial court has framed the charge under Sections 376 (2) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances that appear against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution 4 witnesses. There is no sufficient proof of the age of the victim. The report has been lodged highly belated and there is no explanation for the delay. No injuries have been found on the body of the victim, and a totally improbable story has been developed by the prosecution. The co-student who allegedly saw the incident and teased the victim has not been examined by the prosecution. The victim is a tutored witness, and her evidence cannot be believed. Only on the hypothetical evidence, the appellant has been convicted by the learned trial court. The evidence available on record is full of suspicion, and the appellant cannot be convicted on such evidence, and he is entitled to acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/state would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omission or contradiction, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is fully reliable and corroborated with each other. There is no reason for the false implication of the appellant. The victim has duly supported the prosecution’s case, and her evidence is supported by the other evidence available on record. Although, no injuries are noticed by the doctor who medically examined her, but the injuries are always not necessary to be found on the body of rape victim. In the present case, the incident occurred somewhere in the 1st week of July 2018, whereas she has been medically examined on 25- 08-2018; therefore, even if no injury was found on her body, that itself does not dilute the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the victim is not required to be corroborated if her evidence inspires confidence upon the court, and there is no flaw in her evidence, and it is fully reliable, on which the learned trial court has considered and convicted 5 the appellant for the alleged offence. The appeal filed by the appellant does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with utmost circumspection. 9. The age of the victim is not seriously disputed by the appellant. Further, the age of the victim is proved by her birth certificate, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-8. The original copy of the birth certificate was returned to the father of the victim after retaining its true copy by the supurdnama Ex. P-9. The copy of the birth certificate is also available on record, from which the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 15-04-2011. The said birth certificate is issued by the Sub-Registrar, Birth and Deaths and is admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 10. The P.W. 1, mother of the victim, has stated in her evidence that the age of her daughter is running about 8 years, and her date of birth is 15-04-2011. This has also not been challenged by the appellant in her cross-examination. The P.W. 3, father of the victim, has also proved that the victim is aged about 7 years and the police have seized her birth certificate from him. After retaining a copy of the same, the original copy of the birth certificate was returned to him. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the age of the victim, and the victim was aged about 7 years at the time of the incident, has been proved by the prosecution. 11.With respect to the allegation of rape is concerned, the P.W. 2, victim, has stated in her evidence that she knew the appellant, on the date of incident, when she was going to school, the appellant allured her and 6 called her inside his house to give her money and after removing her clothes, committed rape upon her. She was scared and therefore, she did not disclose the incident to anyone. Another student of the school saw the incident and she started teasing her that she would tell the incident to her mother. In cross-examination, she remain firm in saying that the appellant has committed rape upon her. Nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination so that her evidence could be disbelieved. Although there is some delay in disclosing the incident to her parents but she explained that due to fear, she did not disclose the incident to anyone. She supported the substantive allegation that the appellant has committed rape upon her. 12. P.W. 1, mother of the victim, has stated in her evidence that a day before 25-08-2018, when she came back from her work, she found her daughter crying in her house. When she asked her about her crying, she disclosed the entire incident that the appellant committed rape upon her. When she, along with her companion, went to the house of the appellant and informed the incident to his mother, she started quarreling with them and beat the victim. Then she informed the incident to her husband and lodged the report. In cross-examination, she was being confronted with her 161 CrPC statement Ex. D-1, but such a confrontation is related to the non-vital part of her evidence. In substantive allegation, she remained firm in her cross-examination. The reason for the false implication could also not be extracted by the defence from this witness. 13. P.W. 3, the father of the victim, has also stated that when he returned to his house after his work, his wife informed him about the incident, and then he informed other elderly persons of the vicinity and lodged 7 the report to the police, which is Ex. P-2. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not disclosed in his police statement that the victim had informed the incident to her mother, and then his wife had informed the same. There appears to be some omission and contradiction in his police statement, but the police statement is not confronted with him during his cross-examination, and only questions are asked from him. From perusal of the written complaint, Ex. P-1, it reflects that when this witness returned from his work in the evening, his wife informed him about the incident, which is duly corroborated with his deposition. Nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination which makes his evidence doubtful. 14.P.W. 4, who is also a student of the same school in Class 3rd, stated in her evidence that the other girl “xxx” used to tease the victim about the act of the appellant and then the victim started crying and left the school usually. When she asked the victim, she disclosed the incident that the appellant had committed against her. Thereafter, she disclosed the incident to her mother, and when the mother of the victim asked her, she too had stated that the victim had disclosed the incident to her. In cross-examination, she was not confronted with her 161 CrPC statement, but it has been written in her deposition sheet that the statement made by this witness in her chief examination is not there in her police statement. From the evidence of this witness, the victim has disclosed to her about the incident, is could not be rebutted by proper cross-examination. 15. Although the P.W. 11 Dr. (Smt.) Saroj Deewan, who medically examined the victim, has not noticed any external injuries on the body of the victim, but that itself would not be sufficient to discredit her 8 evidence. Looking to the age of the victim, the manner in which the offence is committed and disclosed by the victim, the time gap between the offence and medical examination of the victim, the injuries are irrelevant and does not affect the prosecution’s case. 16. In the case of “State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny”, (2017) 2 SCC 51, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 30 and 31 of its judgment that:- 30. By no means, it is suggested that whenever such charge of rape is made, where the victim is a child, it has to be treated as a gospel truth and the accused person has to be convicted. We have already discussed above the manner in which the testimony of the prosecutrix is to be examined and analysed in order to find out the truth therein and to ensure that deposition of the victim is trustworthy. At the same time, after taking all due precautions which are necessary, when it is found that the prosecution version is worth believing, the case is to be dealt with all sensitivity that is needed in such cases. In such a situation one has to take stock of the realities of life as well. Various studies show that in more than 80% cases of such abuses, perpetrators have acquaintance with the victims who are not strangers. The danger is more within than outside. Most of the time, acquaintance rapes, when the culprit is a family member, are not even reported for various reasons, not difficult to fathom. The strongest among those is the fear of attracting social stigma. Another deterring factor which many times prevents such victims or their families to lodge a complaint is that they find whole process of criminal justice system extremely intimidating coupled with absence of victim protection mechanism. Therefore, time is ripe to bring about significant reforms in the criminal justice system as well. Equally, there is also a dire need to have a survivor-centric approach towards victims of sexual 9 violence, particularly, the children, keeping in view the traumatic long-lasting effects on such victims. 31. After thorough analysis of all relevant and attendant factors, we are of the opinion that none of the grounds, on which the High Court has cleared b the respondent, has any merit. By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. 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? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance (See Bhupinder Sharma v. State of H.P.5). Notwithstanding this legal position, in the instant case, we even find enough corroborative material as well, which is discussed hereinabove. 10 17. In the matter of “Sham Singh v. State of Haryana” (2018) 18 SCC 34, the Hon’ble supreme Court has held in para 6 and 7 of its judgment that:- 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 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 (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 tendency to 11 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 Assam1.) 18. So far as the delay in lodging the report is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of “State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh”, (2009) 1 SCC 420, in para 6 of its judgement that:- 6. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition- bound society prevalent in India, more particularly rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR. In that score, learned counsel for the appellant is right that the High Court has lost sight of this vital distinction. 19.The version of the victim commands great respect and acceptability, but if there are some circumstances which cast some doubt in the mind of the court on the veracity of the victim's evidence, then it will not be safe to rely on the said version of the victim. There is contradiction and 1 (1998) 8 SCC 635 12 omissions in the statement of the victim and her parents. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 20. In view of the foregoing reasons and consideration, this court is of the considered view that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which there is no scope for any interference. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 21. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 27-08-2018. He shall serve the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. He is entitled for set-off of his undergone period during the trial as well as this appeal. 22. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 13 23. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.04.29 10:22:58 +0530