1 2025:CGHC:9542-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 906 of 2021 Balak Das @ Bhokochand S/o Dhuluram Baghel Aged About 25 Years R/o Satnamipara, Gondpendri, P. S. Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 837 of 2021 Leeladhar Chaturvedi S/o Ghasiya Chaturvedi Aged About 25 Years R/o Satnamipara, Gondpendri, P.S. Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Utai District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) ________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.02.2025 1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and common judgment, this Court is disposing of both these appeals by a common judgment. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.03 10:46:57 +0530 2 2. Both these Criminal Appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.54/2020, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently:- CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 450 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years & fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 02 months. U/s 376(D) of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years & fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 02 months. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 13.06.2019 the complainant/victim has filed a First Information Report in the Police Station Utai to the effect that she lives with her mother in her maternal house in Satnami Para and works as a laborer, and a house is being built in Indira Awas in the name of her mother in which she works, on 13.06.2019, after doing the household work, while she was sitting inside the house, Bhokochand alias Balakdas Baghel and Liladhar Chaturvedi, who live in the village, forcefully entered the house, opened the door, tied her mouth with a cloth and made her lie on the bed. When she resisted and shouted, they threatened to kill her. Despite her resistance, the accused forcefully had physical relations with her one by one. At the same time, 3 hearing the screams, her mother reached there and seeing her, Balakdas and Liladhar Chaturvedi ran away from the house. She informed her mother about the entire incident and after informing other family members Sunita Ratre, Saroj Ratre, Satrabai, Jugbai, she reported the matter to the police station. On the basis of the above report, the accused were found guilty of committing a crime and a case number 203/2019 was registered under sections 376D, 450, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Utai Police Station, District Durg and investigation was done. 4. After obtaining consent from the victim for medical examination by the Investigating Officer, Satish Kumar Puria, a medical examination application was prepared and the victim and the underwear seized from her were sent to the Community Health Center for examination. After examining the victim, the female head constable brought sealed packets of underwear and slides of vaginal discharge of the victim which were seized. The Investigating Officer seized the underwear of both the accused in front of witnesses and sent both the underwear to the Community Health Center for examination and for examination of the genitals of the accused. During the investigation, the scene of the incident was inspected and a map was prepared and the statements of the victim and witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. A memo sent to the Tehsildar, District Durg, to get the map of the scene of the incident prepared by the Patwari. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused and prepared the arrest sheet and 4 informed the family members of the accused about their arrest. The seized properties were sent to the State Forensic Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical examination through the Superintendent of Police. On finding evidence of crime against the accused during investigation, the final report was presented in the concerned Court against the accused under Sections 450 and 376D, 506, 34 IPC. As the case was to be tried by the Sessions Court, case was transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, whereform the case was transferred to Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Durg for trial. 5. When the accused were charged under Sections 450, 376D, 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, they denied the charges. Their plea has been recorded. In the statement taken under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused have stated themselves to be innocent and that they have been falsely implicated. 6. On behalf of the prosecution, in support of its case, the mother of the victim (PW-1), brother of the victim (PW-2), aunt of the victim (PW-3), Tiharu (PW-4), uncle of the victim (PW-5), aunt of the victim (PW-6), Dayaluram Baghel (PW-7), Patwari Chhatis Kumar (PW-8), Dr. Mamta Gendre (PW-09), Dr. Narendra Golan (PW-10) and Investigating Officer Satish Kumar Puria (PW-11), PR Hemlata (PW-12) have been examined. No witness has been examined in defence on behalf of the accused. 5 7. During the course of trial, the victim died on 20.01.2020 and her death was stated to be natural death, as such, her statement could not be recorded before the trial Court. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 22.06.2021 convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which these appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC have been preferred calling in question the impugned judgment. 8. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that on the basis circumstantial evidence, the charges have not been proved against the accused/appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that since the victim died naturally after 06 months from the incident and MLC (Ex.P-18) also does not support the incident therefore, on account of non-examination of the victim and merely on the basis of her FSL Report (Ex. P-30), the accused cannot be convicted for the offence of rape because as per FSL Report (Ex.P-30) though semen stains and human sperm were found over Article-C i.e. undergarment seized from the accused Balak Das @ Bhokochand, but the semen stains found over Article-C were not found sufficient for serological examination. He would further submit that the alleged dying declaration given by the victim is not useful to the prosecution as she remained alive for almost seven months after the date of incident, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the 6 matter of Sudhakar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2000) 6 SCC 671. Similarly, for the reason that the victim had died, Test Identification Parade could not be conducted and the appellants have not been identified in a duly conducted Test Identification Parade, therefore, their presence on the date and time of the offence is also doubtful. He would further submit that the prosecution has examined interested witnesses, relatives of the victim, in connection with the incident and other independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution regarding the incident. He lastly contended that the victim and her mother had a rivalry with the accused, due to which they have lodged a false report out of enmity and the evidence of the witnesses presented by the prosecution is not reliable, due to which the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged crime against the accused. Therefore, it is requested to acquit the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the accused/appellants have forcefully entered the house, opened the door, tied the mouth of the victim with a cloth and made her lie on the bed and when she resisted and shouted, they threatened to kill her and despite her resistance, the accused forcefully had physical relations with her one by one and the same has been duly proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the judgment of 7 conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. It is apparent that the alleged incident took place on 13.06.2019 and the FIR has been lodged by the victim on the same day i.e. on 13.06.2019, wherein allegation of house tresspassing and commission of rape has been levelled against both the accused persons, her statement was recorded, her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3, District – Durg (C.G.) on 22.06.2019, wherein the victim has stated that she live in her mother's house with her mother, brother and daughter-in-law. Her husband and her children do not live with her, they live in Dantarenga village. She further stated that it is a matter of a week or ten days ago that Liladhar and Balakdas of her village came inside her house and asked if gravel and sand have to be dumped for Indira Awas house. Then she said that her mother will know after that they forcibly entered her house, at that time no one was at home, she was alone at home, they were drunk, they dragged her to the shade and closed the door of the house and pressed her mouth and molested her and raped her, they threatened to kill her, when her mother and brother and daughter-in-law came and called to open the door, then Liladhar and Balakdas opened the door and 8 told her mother that they had come to ask for gravel and sand and ran away from there. Thereafter, during pendency of the trial, the victim died on 20.01.2020 and her death is stated to be natural death. 12. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that since the victim could not be examined, in absence of her examination to prove penetration, the appellants could not have been convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 376D of IPC as to prove penetration, the victim was the best witness who could have stated before the Court and in that event, the appellants could have cross-examined her and only thereafter, the appellants could have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376D of IPC, if found proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Admittedly, in the instant case, the victim could not be examined before the trial Court as she had died after about seven months from the date of incident. The issue of the non-examination of the victim who died and was not available for examination came before the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Mahabaleshwar Gourya Naik reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 179 in which the accused was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 376/511 & 323 of IPC and he was convicted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court giving him the benefit of doubt citing the reason of non-availability of the victim for examination. In the said matter, their Lordships of the 9 Supreme Court considered the question whether the case of the prosecution should be thrown overboard because of the non- availability of the victim for examination on account of her death and answered the issue holding that where the victim is dead and consequently could not be examined can never be a ground to acquit an accused if there is evidence otherwise available proving the criminal act of the accused concerned. In that case, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 of IPC. As such, it is quite well settled that mere fact of non-availability of the victim for examination cannot be fatal for the prosecution case and the Court should decide the case on the basis of available evidence. 14. Investigating officer Satish Kumar Puria (PW 11) has stated that during the investigation, notice (Ex.P-2) under Section 160 CrPC was issued to Chanda Bai and notice (Ex.P-14) under section 160 CrPC was issued to Narendra Kumar Ratre. Notice (Ex.P-24) under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was issued to Sunita Ratre and notice (Ex.P-25) under section 160 CrPC was issued to Chandrajit Ratre. During the investigation, on 13.06.2019, when the victim presented the underwear, it was seized in front of witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P-1. The victim's mother (PW-1), a witness in the said seizure proceedings Ex.P-1, has stated that the police had not seized any item from her but her signature was on a part of the seizure memo Ex.P.1. However, on the suggestive question put by the prosecution, she has denied the suggestion that the 10 police had seized the victim's underwear in her presence. She herself said that her daughter had given and the policemen had not taken it. 15. Sunita Ratre (PW-3) though has stated in her evidence that the police did not take any action in her presence, but her signature is present on the B to B portion of the seizure memo Ex.P.1. But on the indicative question being asked by the prosecution, she has accepted that the police had seized the underwear of the victim in her presence, regarding which she has denied the suggestion given in the cross-examination that no seizure action was taken from the victim in her presence. Thus, the seizure action of the underwear from the victim has been supported by the victim's aunt (PW-3) in her evidence. According to seizure memo Ex.P-1, the seizure of underwear from the victim by the Investigating Officer was done in the presence of Chandabai and Sunita, which is supported by the victim's aunt (PW-3), thus confirming the said seizure action. 16. Investigating Officer Satish Kumar Puria (PW-11) has stated that during the investigation on 13.06.2019, when the victim presented the underwear, he had seized it in front of witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P.01. On the same date, after examining the victim, on presenting two sealed packets by lady constable Lalita Sahu 549, the same were seized in presence of witnesses vide Ex.P-4. 11 17. Dr. Mamta Gendre (PW-09) has certified her examination report Ex.P-18 and 19 and stated that on 13th June 2019 at 11.45 in the afternoon, the woman constable Ghanita Sahu of Utai police station brought the victim for medical examination. No injury marks were found in the external examination of the victim. During the examination, no pain or bleeding was found in the victim's private parts. She prepared two slides from the vaginal discharge of the victim in which fluid was present and handed over the same to the said constable in a sealed packet for chemical examination. According to this witness, it was not possible to give a definite opinion regarding the immediate sexual intercourse with the victim. This witness has further stated that on the same date and at the same time, a sealed packet was brought for examination by the same lady constable. On opening the sealed packet, it was found that an underwear of mehndi green colour was present, in the middle of the underwear there was a white coloured spot mark which was already marked with a black marker. She sealed the marked clothes and returned it to the same constable for chemical examination. The witness has accepted in cross-examination that she has not given any definite opinion regarding sexual intercourse in her report. 18. Investigating officer Satish Kumar Puria (PW-11) has further stated in his evidence that on 14.06.2019, when accused Balakdas has produced his blue coloured lined underwear, the same was seized before the witnesses as per seizure memo 12 Ex.P-5 and on 14.06.2019 when accused Liladhar produced his blue coloured plain underwear, the same was seized in front of witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P-6, and on the same date, he had prepared a memos for sending accused Balakdas and Liladhar to Government Hospital, Uttai for medical examination, which are Ex.P.22A and Ex.P.20A. On the same date 14.06.2019, he prepared a written memo Ex.P.23A for sending the underwear seized from accused Balakdas to Government Hospital, Uttai for examination and on the same date 14.06.2019, he prepared and sent a written memo Ex.P.21A for sending the underwear seized from accused Liladhar to Government Hospital, Uttai for examination. 19. The above seizure action of the Investigating Officer has been supported by Dr. Narendra Golan (PW-10). Dr. Narendra Golan (PW-10) has certified the test reports of accused Liladhar and Balakdas respectively Exs.P-20, 21, 22 and 23 and has stated that he had examined accused Liladhar and Balakdas on 14.06.2019 and according to him, accused Liladhar and Balakdas are capable of having sexual intercourse. This witness has further stated that on 14.6.2019, while examining a blue coloured Heera Panna underwear and a blue coloured underwear, he found that the underwear had stains which could be of human semen and he sealed the said underwear and handed over to the constable for its chemical examination. 13 20. Investigating officer Satish Puria (PW-11) has stated that during the investigation, a memo (Ex.P-28) was prepared through the Superintendent of Police, Durg for chemical testing of the seized items and sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur and acknowledgement receipt of the same was obtained vide Ex.P-29 and the FSL report received from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur is Ex.P-30. 21. According to the FSL report Ex.P.30 attached in the case, semen stains and human sperms have been found in Article B (victim's vaginal discharge slide) and Article C (accused Bhokochand's underwear), but semen stains and human sperms have not been found in Article A (victim's underwear) and Article D (accused Liladhar's underwear. 22. Regarding the incident, the mother of the victim (PW-1) has stated in her judicial evidence that the victim is her daughter. On the date of date of incident, she had gone to her work as usual at 6:00 in the morning and when she returned at 3:00 in the afternoon, she saw that Balakdas and Liladhar have come to her house, she asked them why they had come, then they said that they have come for gravel and sand, at that time, she was getting her house constructed under the Atal Awas Yojna, she felt that those people have come for the same purpose. At that time her daughter the victim, who was around 30 years old, was in his house. Her daughter did not tell her anything. At that time Balakdas and Liladhar appeared to be in drunken condition. After 14 their departure, when she asked her daughter why these two boys had come, the victim told her that first Balakdas came and then Leeladhar came. First Balakdas did a wrong thing with her. By wrong thing she meant rape. After that Leeladhar did a wrong thing/rape with her. Her daughter was probably threatened by Balakdas and Liladhar, so she did not tell her. After she asked her a lot, the victim told her about the incident. When the victim told her about the incident, she informed the Sarpanch about the incident, who asked her to report to the police station. Then she came to the police station with her daughter to register a report. When she had taken her daughter to the police station, she had got the report registered, her daughter had told about the incident there and got the report registered. 23. On the indicative question being asked by the prosecution, the mother of the victim, PW-1, has accepted that when she had asked the girl, she had told her that “Baalakdas Baghel and Liladhar Chaturvedi of the village, after tying a cloth in her mouth, made her lie on the bed, forcibly entered the house one by one and had sexual intercourse with her.” She has also accepted that she had told the above facts while giving statement to the police. She had told in the police statement Ex.P-3 that “Baalakdas Baghel and Liladhar Chaturvedi of such unfortunate village… entered and had sexual intercourse with her.” The statement made by the mother of the victim regarding the rape of the victim by the accused remained unrebutted during cross-examination. 15 24. The mother of the victim (PW-1) in her cross-examination has rejected the suggestion made by the accused that she had built a house on the road land, a complaint of which was made to the Sarpanch. She voluntarily said that she had built his house on his own land. She has rejected the suggestion that on complaint, the Sarpanch and other officials of the Gram Panchayat came to her house for investigation and got the pit of the additional house built by her closed and then she built a house at the back. She has told that at the time of the incident, the Sarpanch was Devnarayan whose tenure was from 2015 to 2020 and accused Leeladhar is brother of Sarpanch Devnarayan. She has denied that she had a grudge against accused Leeladhar brother of Devnarayan, so she along with her daughter lodged a false report against the accused. Thus, it is clear from the above evidence of the victim's mother that she has denied the above suggestion of the accused and the statement given by her regarding the incident of rape committed by the accused with the victim has remained unrebutted. 25. The another witness, the victim's brother (PW-2) has stated in his evidence that he knows the accused by face who are residents of his village Gondpandri. The victim's mother is his aunt. Incident is about two years ago that he was going to the shop after lunch when he saw that Balakdas and Leeladhar were coming out of the victim's mother's house and after coming out they sat on a motorcycle and left. At the same time his aunt came from the 16 back lane and saw both the accused coming out of the house. Then his aunt saw him and called him, he came to her, then the aunt told him that Balakdas and Leeladhar had raped her daughter, the victim. After that he called the police station and informed about the incident. After giving the information, he also asked the victim, then she told her mother about the incident in front of him. After giving the information in the police station, he took his aunt in his car and his father and uncle took his mother and sister victim to Uttai police station, where the aunt filed a report of the incident. At that time his sister victim was in the police station. 26. Witness victim's brother (PW-2) has admitted on the pointed question put by the prosecution that on 13.06.2019 he came to know through his mother Sunita that the victim daughter of his aunt (victim's mother) has been raped. On knowing about the incident, he went to her aunt's house and questioned his sister. Then the victim told that in the afternoon Balakdas alias Bhokochanda and Liladhar of the same village forcibly entered the house and raped her one by one. Both of them could not escape together from the back of the house, they ran away from the front. Then when her mother came, both of them opened the front door and ran in front of her mother. She had told the above things to the police while giving statement Ex.P.10. 27. In the cross-examination of this witness, brother of the victim (PW-2), the statement made by the victim regarding giving him 17 information regarding the incident has remained unrebutted and he has denied the suggestion that he is giving false statement in the Court. 28. The PW-3, aunt of the victim and mother of PW-2, has stated in her evidence that she knows the accused. One's name is Balakdas and the other's name is Leeladhar. Both the accused are residents of her village Gondpandri. The incident happened with her niece the victim a year ago. On the date of the incident, she came back from her work and had gone to the pond to wash her hands and feet and was returning home from the pond when she saw both the accused coming out of the victim's mother's house. Then she came home and sat down, at the same time the victim's mother came to her house and told her that her daughter had been raped. She told that both the accused had raped her. 29. This witness has admitted to giving a statement Ex.P-11 on 13.06.2019 to the police on the indicative question put by the prosecution. In her cross-examination, she has stated that in her statement to the police she has not told that on the date of incident, she had gone to wash her hands and feet in the pond after returning from her work and was returning home from the pond, that she had seen both the accused coming out of the house of the victim's mother, today for the first time she is speaking in Court. She has denied the suggestion that she has no knowledge of the incident. Being her relative, she is making a false statement in the Court today, she is giving a false statement 18 in connivance with the victim's mother to implicate the accused. Thus, from the above evidence of the victim's aunt, the statement given by the victim's mother regarding the incident has remained intact during her cross-examination, no facts regarding the enmity between the accused have come out from this witness, due to which there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. 30. The victim's maternal uncle (PW-5) has stated in his evidence that he knows the accused present in the Court, the victim is his niece, who has died. About a year ago his sister, the victim's mother, came to his house and told him that the victim was raped by Balakdas and Liladhar. Then he told her to go and lodge a report. Then he, his sister-in-law Sunita, her son Chandrajit and sister, went to Utai police station along with the victim, where his sister lodged a verbal report of the incident. This witness has denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that he did not go to the police station with the victim and his sister. He has accepted that he does not know about the incident. Whatever his sister had told him, he is telling the same thing in the Court. From the above evidence of this witness, it is clear that he came to know about the incident after his sister, the victim's mother told him and he had gone to the police station with the sister and the victim. Thus, the above evidence of the victim's maternal uncle has proved that the information given by the victim's mother regarding the incident has remained unconfirmed during cross- examination. This witness has not revealed any facts regarding 19 the rivalry between the accused, due to which there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. 31. The victim's maternal aunt (PW-06) has stated in her evidence that she knows the accused present in the Court. She knows the victim. She is her niece. She died about a year and a half ago. The incident took place on 13 June last year. She came home at 3:00 pm after working in the garden. At that time, her sister, the victim's mother, came and told that when she reached home after finishing her contract work, the door of the house was closed. She knocked on the door and it did not open. Her daughter was alone at home due to ill health. When the door opened after about 5 minutes, she saw that both the accused were inside the house. When she asked why they had come, they said that they had come to see the house being built. After that, both of them left from there. After they left, her daughter started crying and while crying told that both the boys raped her. 32. The witness, the victim's maternal aunt (PW 06) has denied in cross-examination that no incident has taken place, she is giving statement as told by the victim's mother, she is giving false statement in connivance with the victim's mother to implicate the accused. Thus, the statement made by the victim's mother in cross-examination of this witness about her telling him about the incident has remained uncontested during cross-examination. No facts have come out from this witness regarding the rivalry of the 20 accused, due to which there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. 33. Learned counsel for the accused submitted during arguments that only the interested witnesses have been examined in the case and the statements of independent witnesses have not been recorded and the independent witnesses who have been examined have not supported the prosecution. 34. In Namdeo Vs State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1835, the Supreme Court held that a witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The Supreme Court also observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. 35. In Dharnidhar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others & other connected appeals, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 759, the Supreme 21 Court further reiterated that there is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before court. The Supreme Court held that a close relative of deceased does not, per-se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before court only with that intention and not to further cause of justice. However, version of interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same. When their statements find corroboration by other witnesses, expert evidence and circumstances of case clearly depict completion of chain of evidence pointing out guilt of accused, then statements of so-called “interested witnesses” can be relied upon by court. 36. Thus, the evidence of the relative witnesses cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that they were interested witnesses. However, their evidence is to be scrutinized with care and caution. If on such scrutiny, their evidence is found to be reliable and trustworthy, conviction based on such evidence can be held to be justified. 37. In the context of the above judicial precedents, it is clear from the evidence of the mother of the victim (PW-1) that the incident took place in the house of the victim. The mother of the victim (PW-1) first saw the accused inside her house, after which, on getting 22 suspicious, when she asked her daughter victim about the accused coming to her house, she told that the first she was raped by Balakdas and then by Leeladhar, about which she told the village sarpanch and lodged a report of the incident with her daughter. The immediate filing of the report of the incident by the mother of the victim (PW-1) is confirmed by the First Information Report Ex.P.31 in which the victim lodged the report of the incident at 20.50 pm on the same date after the incident took place on 13.06.2019 at 13.30 pm. The information was given by the mother of the victim to PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6. After which the people took the victim to the police station to lodge a report. The statement given by all these witnesses in their evidence regarding the victim and the mother of the victim informing them about the accused raping the victim in turns, has been unrebutted during the cross-examination. There is no such evidence of these witnesses regarding the rivalry of the accused, due to which there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. The accused have also not presented any evidence of not being at the scene of the incident on the date of the incident and of having lodged the report at the scene. Therefore, from a practical perspective, there is no basis to disbelieve the unbiased evidence of these witnesses on the basis of being interested witnesses only. 38. The evidence of the mother (PW-1) and maternal aunt (PW-3) of the victim clearly shows that due to the ill health of victim, her mother had brought the victim home for treatment and the victim 23 was staying with her mother for 5-6 months before the incident. Immediately after the report of the incident on the same day, the victim was given medical treatment at 11.45 pm, which is confirmed by Dr. Mamta Gendre (PW-09) and her report Ex. P-18 and the seized underwear Ex. P-19. According to which the slide of the victim's vaginal discharge and the underwear seized from her were sent for chemical examination. According to the FSL report Ex. P-30 attached to the case, semen stains and human sperm were found in the slide of the victim's vaginal discharge Article B and semen stains and human sperm were found in the underwear seized by the accused Balakdas at the time of the incident. The presence of semen stains and human sperm in the slide of the victim's vaginal discharge confirms the incident of rape with her. 39. Though in this case there is lack of evidence of the victim due to her death, but the above irrefutable evidence of the victim's mother (PW-1), brother (PW-2), maternal aunt (PW-3), maternal uncle (PW-5), maternal aunt (PW-6) has proved that the accused had entered to the victim's mother's house, which the victim's mother saw in her house and the accused were drunk and when the victim's mother asked them, they gave a false reason for coming to the house and left. On doubting this, when the victim was questioned, she told her mother that the accused had raped her one by one, which proves that the accused had entered the victim's mother's house illegally with the intention of committing a 24 crime punishable with life imprisonment and committed house trespass. The victim's brother (PW-2) has stated in his evidence that he saw the accused coming out of the victim's mother's house and going away on a motorcycle, which remained uncontested during cross-examination, which also confirms that the accused were coming out from inside the victim's house. Thus, the victim's mother (PW-1) and the above irrefutable and reliable evidence of the victim's brother (PW-2) proves that the accused committed house trespass by entering the house of the victim's mother with the intention of committing an offence punishable with life imprisonment. 40. Thus, it is found proved that the accused entered in the residential house of the victim and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. 41. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the accused are the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and as such, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 42. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed 25 any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict. 43. Accordingly, both the appeals being devoid of merit, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 44. The accused appellants are stated to be in jail. They shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.06.2021. 45. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra