1 2025:CGHC:6766-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1288 of 2023 Mahesh Dewangan Son Of Late Shiv Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Adarsh Nager, Mathpara, P.S. Tikrapara. District Raipur (Chhattisgarh.). ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara District Raipur (Chhattisgarh.). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ram esh Sinha, C.J. 06/02/2025 1. The matter has been listed for consideration on I.A. No. 2 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Notices have been issued to the victim/prosecutrix, but no one appears on her behalf to record her submission. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard finally. Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.03.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Special Court, Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No. 161 of 2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner : Conviction Sentence U/s. 5(k), (l) and (m)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one year. U/s. 377 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 months. U/s. 376(2)(l) of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 months. U/s. 376(2)(n) of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 months. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the victim/PW-2 is a differently abled child having about 10 years and 6 months of age. She was subjected to rape and unnatural sexual intercourse by the appellant. On 29.06.2021, the father of the victim (PW-3) has lodged a written complaint/Exhibit P-3 to the police with the allegation that on 28.06.2021, at about 11:00 in the night, his nephew informed him that his neighbour, i.e. the appellant, has committed rape upon the victim and his another neighbour has sent an obscene video, in which it is visible that the appellant was committing rape upon the victim. When he saw the said video, he found substance in the information. When he inquired from the person who prepared the video, he too have 3 confirmed that on 27.06.2021, at about 2:30 p.m., when he was roaming in his terrace, he saw that the appellant was committing unnatural sexual intercourse upon the victim and raped her. Based on the written complaint, the police has registered the FIR/Exhibit P- 18 against the appellant for the offence under Sections 376, 377 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. *******The victim was being sent for her medical examination to the MCH Hospital Raipur, where PW-7/Dr. Meena Samuel has medically examined her and gave report/Exhibit P-13. While medically examining the victim, no external injuries have been found on her body and opined that vaginal penetratum not seen and no sign of vaginal penetratum. Two slides of her vaginal swab were prepared, sealed and handed over to police for its chemical examination. *******Spot Map/Exhibit P-4 was prepared by the police and P-6 was prepared by the Patwari. The progress report card of the victim and her disability certificate have been seized vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-7. The obscene video clip was also extracted from the mobile phone number 7803040250 which was owned by the nephew of the complainant and seized after obtaining it in CD which has been seized vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-8. With respect to the age and date of birth of the victim, the police has seized the school register from Adarsh High School, Raipur vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-11, and after retaining the attested true copy of the school register Exhibit P-12C, original register Exhibit P-12 was returned back to the school. The appellant was arrested on 29.06.2021 and he too was sent for his medical examination to District Hospital Raipur where he 4 was medically examined by PW-8/Dr. Rakesh Kumar Patel, who gave his report/Exhibit P-14. After examining the appellant, the doctor has found him capable to perform sexual intercourse. One mobile phone has been seized from the appellant vide seizure memo Exhibit P-15, in which he stated that he deleted the obscene video. The preparation of the CD from the mobile phone of the complainant and handing over it to the police has also been certified by the complainant vide its certificate Exhibit P-16 and P-17. The vaginal slides of the victim were sent for its chemical examination to State FSL Raipur from where report Exhibit P-28 was received and according to the FSL report, no semen and sperm were found on the vaginal slides of the victim. The mobile phone seized from the appellant were sent for its examination to State FSL Raipur at Cyber Forensic Lab from where report Exhibit P-31 was received, and no data could be recovered from the mobile phone of the appellant as the data was deleted and it was retrieved. *******Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC and Statement under Section 164 of the victim have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 376 and 377 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act before the learned trial Court. 4. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 377, 376 AB, 376(2)(l) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 5(k) (l) and (m)/6 of POCSO Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 5 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances, appears against him, plead innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant for the alleged offences. There is no legally admissible evidence with respect to the age of the victim that she was minor on the date of incident. Even it is not proved by leading cogent evidence that she was differently abled child. No injuries have been found on the body of the victim. Therefore, there is no material to connect the appellant with the offence in question. Even from the mobile phone of the appellant, no any obscene video has been recovered. Furthermore, the prosecution has also failed to prove the genuineness of the video by proving the electronic evidence in accordance with law. He would further submit that considering the inconsistency of the evidence of the witnesses, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt and for his acquittal. 6 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that from the evidence led by the prosecution, the guilt of the appellant has duly been proved. But for minor omission or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are fully reliable and corroborative with each other, which further supported the evidence of the video clipping extracted from the mobile phone of the complainant. The incident was witnessed by the neighbour of the complainant who got it recorded in his mobile phone. In the fact that the appellant was committing unnatural sexual intercourse with the victim, even if no injuries have been found on other parts of her body, it does not affect the prosecution's case as the manner in which the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant, the injuries might not have been possible. Furthermore, it is not necessary that in each and every case the victim must have received injuries, who subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused. He would further submit that the victim is being 10 years old minor girl, her age was proved by the school register/Exhibit P-12C and her Progress Report Card of class-1/Article A-1. The witnesses have duly supported the prosecution's case and after considering the entire evidence as also the nature of offence, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence as alleged and no infirmity or illegality is there in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and therefore the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7 10. The first and foremost question arises for consideration would be the age of the victim, as to whether on the date of incident she was minor or not ? 11. The prosecution has relied upon the school register/Exhibit P-12C which is sought to be proved by PW-6 who is the Headmistress of the school. She stated in her evidence that the police has seized the school register from her with respect to the age and date of birth of the victim. The school register was seized vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-11 and the original register is Exhibit P-12 and it's attested true copy is Exhibit P-12C. As per the school register, the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 17.12.2010 and she got admitted in class-1 of the school. *******In cross-examination, he admitted that in the FIR as well as in the school register the name of mother of the victim is different. She voluntarily stated that in both these documents, the name of father of the victim is the same. She denied the suggestion given by the defence that the basis on which the date of birth of the victim is recorded in the school register, she did not know. She voluntarily stated that on the basis of birth certificate of the victim, her date of birth is recorded in the school register. She also denied that the entries made in the school register is not in her own handwriting. *******From the evidence of this witness, it is quite vivid that she is the author of the school register, from whom the same has been seized to prove the age of the victim. She firmly stated that on the basis of her birth certificate, her date of birth is recorded in the school 8 register and it is in her own hand writing. Nothing could be extracted from the evidence of this witness, which makes her evidence doubtful and not believable. She has duly proved the date of birth of the victim i.e. 17.12.2010. Her date of birth is further corroborated by the progress report card/Article A-1 and the certificate issued by District Medical Board/Article A-2, which has been seized in the case vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-7. 12. In the matter of Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263, in Para 20 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : “20. During the course of hearing of the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contested the determination of the High Court in the impugned judgment, wherein it had concluded, that the prosecutrix VW- PW6 was a minor. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it was pointed out, that the sexual organs of the prosecutrix VW- PW6 were found to be fully developed by Dr. Kanta Dhankar- PW1. Her hymen was found to be ruptured. It was also seen during the medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix VW- PW6, that the vagina admitted two/three fingers easily. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused Jarnail Singh, also invited our attention to the cross-examination of Dr. Kanta Dhankar- (PW1), wherein she acknowledged having mentioned the age of the prosecutrix VW- PW6 as 15 years, on the basis of the statement made by the prosecutrix to her. Dr. Kanta Dhankar-PW1 had also acknowledged, that she had not got the ossification test conducted on the prosecutrix VW- PW6 to scientifically determine the age of the prosecutrix. Based on the aforesaid, it was averred that there was no concrete material on the record of the case, on the basis of which it could have been concluded by the High Court, that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of occurrence. ” 9 13. PW-7/Dr. Meena Samuel who medically examined the victim has stated in her evidence that on 29.06.2021 the victim aged about 11 years was produced before her for her medical examination. There is no cross-examination from this witness with respect to her age as shown by her in her medical examination report/Exhibit P-13. 14. While recording the evidence of PW-2/victim, the learned trial Court has made a note in the initial part of her deposition sheet that the victim is aged about 9 years and less than 12 years and after examining her Intelligence Quotient, they recorded her evidence. In Para 2 of her evidence, the victim has stated that she is aged about 9 years. In her cross-examination, there is no challenge that part of her evidence that she is aged about 9 years. 15. PW-3/father of the victim has also stated in his evidence that the date of birth of his daughter is 17.12.2010 and she is presently aged about 11 years. In his cross-examination, he firmly stated that the victim was got admitted in the school by him and he recorded her date of birth on the basis of her birth certificate and he also submitted a copy of the birth certificate in the school. From the evidence of this witness also, the defence could not extract any material point, which makes her evidence doubtful that the victim was not a minor. *******Similarly, is the evidence of PW-4 who is the mother of the victim. She too have stated that the victim was aged about 11 years at the time of incident and she remained firm in saying about the age of the victim on the date of incident. 10 *******From all these evidence and in absence of any challenge to the age of the victim, it can safely be hold that the victim was aged about 10 years and 6 months on the date of incident and was less than 12 years of age. 16. So far as the offence of rape and unnatural sexual intercourse are concerned, we again examined the evidence laid by the prosecution. *******After satisfying the Intelligence Quotient of the victim, the learned trial Court proceeded to record her evidence. The learned trial Court has also made a note in the deposition sheet of the victim, which is necessary to reproduce here, which are as under : “ न्यायालय ्ቛारा ्ቚ्቞ः- यह डॉल से अब बताओ कि बंटी भैइया/ आरोपी ने क्या गंदा ाम किया था? उ्ቈरः- पीकि&ता ने डॉल ी फॉ उठार बताया कि बंटी भैइया/आरोपी ने मेरी फॉ उपर ी थी किफर मेरी च्ቂी उतारी थी। किफर बंटी भैझ्या/आरोपी ने मेरी पेशाब ी जगह में अपनी पेशाब ी जगह डालर गंदा गंदा ाम किया था। बंटी भैइया/आरोपी ने मेरे मुंह में भी अपनी पेशाब ी जगह डालर गंदा- गंदा किया था।” *******The victim has stated in her evidence that she knew the appellant and calling him as Bunty Bhaiya. The appellant took her to the terrace on the pretext of giving chocolate to her, but he has not given chocolate to her and committed bad work with her. When the learned trial Court clarifies about the bad work committed by the appellant, then with the help of a toy, she disclosed by gesture with the help of that toy and stated about the incident. She clearly narrated the incident by the gesture with the help of the toy, which is made in Para 3 of her chief examination. She also disclosed the incident to her mother and the police persons. 11 *******In her cross-examination, she stated that she used to go to the house of the appellant to play. Sometimes she had gone to his house without informing her parents. On the day when she was subjected to bad work by the appellant, after informing her mother, she had gone to his house for playing and at that time, it was evening. At the time when the appellant has committed bad work with her, she could not see any other person there. On that day, his wife and children were not there in his house. On the date of incident, she has not disclosed the incident to her parents, but later on she disclosed it. The appellant has committed the incident of bad work with her earlier also and there was a quarrel ensued between the appellant and her mother. *******From the evidence of the victim, the defence could not extract any material to make her evidence doubtful or it can be said that she has falsely implicated the appellant in the offence in question. Rather, she remained firm in the manner, in which she was subjected to sexual intercourse as well as unnatural sexual intercourse by the appellant. 17. PW-3, the father of the victim, has stated in his evidence that on 28.06.2021, when he was in his house, his nephew has informed him about the incident and also informed about the video sent by another neighbor in his mobile phone. When he saw the video clipping, he came to know about the incident. His another neighbor who prepared the said video has also confirmed the same and thereafter he lodged the report on 29.06.2021. He also stated that he extracted the video clipping in the form of CD and given it to the police, which has been 12 seized vide the seizure memo/Exhibit P-8. At this stage, the sealed packet was opened and CD was taken out and when it was played in the Court, the entire incident is visible in the said CD, which has been taken out from the mobile phone of the person to whom it was transmitted by the person, who prepared it. He also described the manner in which his daughter was subjected to sexual intercourse, which has been visible in the said CD. He also identified the victim is his daughter, who is differently abled child. The said CD is marked as Article A-3 and he obtained a certificate from the person, who has prepared the said CD. *******In cross-examination, he admitted that his daughter used to go to the house of the appellant for playing. The daughter of the appellant and his daughter are of the same age group and were playing together. Therefore, they have never stopped her to go to the house of the appellant. The victim herself has not informed him about the incident, but he came to know about the incident from the said video clipping. He also proved the disability certificate of his daughter/Article A-2, which has been issued by the District Medical Board on 12.03.2019. He admitted in his cross-examination that in his written report/Exhibit P-3, he has not written that his daughter was subjected to unnatural sexual intercourse and the appellant has inserted his penis in the mouth of the victim. But he clarified that in his written report, he stated about the rape and unnatural sexual intercourse by the appellant with the victim. *******From the evidence of this witness also, the offence as alleged by the victim has been proved that he saw the video clipping in the 13 mobile phone of his nephew and then he lodged the report. The said video clipping in the form of CD, which has been annexed with the charge sheet has also been played in the Court and found the contents of the allegation in the said video clipping. 18. PW-4, mother of the victim has also stated in her evidence that they came to know about the incident from her nephew, who showed a video clipping to them. In that video clipping, the incident was there which was committed by the appellant with her daughter. Her daughter is a differently abled child and her certificate was seized by the seizure memo/Exhibit P-7. When the leading question was asked from her, she proved her police statement/Exhibit P-9A and stated about the incident, which has been seen by her in the said video. *******In cross-examination, she admitted that on 27.06.2021, her daughter has not informed about any incident, her daughter is a differently abled child and when her husband disclosed about the incident, she asked from her daughter softly and then she disclosed about the incident. She has not seen any injury on her private part and the victim has also not disclosed about any injury there. She also stated in her evidence that she has seen the video clipping in the mobile phone of her husband. *******This witness has also corroborated the allegation leveled by the victim as well as her father. 19. PW-1/Dr. Meeta Mukherjee is the Special Educator/Counselor who was being called to assist in recording evidence of the victim, who is suffering from 50% intellectual disability. She stated in her evidence 14 that while counseling the victim before the Court, she found that the victim is suffered by mild category intellectual disability, but her disability is not of that extent that she could not understand the questions and could not give the answer. She is able to give her answer to the questions. 20. PW-7/Dr. Meena Samuel has stated in her evidence that on 29.06.2021, she medically examined the victim and no injuries have been found on her body. Her mouth and oral cavity was also found to be normal. Her private part was also normal and her hymen was intact. Two slides of her veterinary swab were prepared, sealed and handed over to police for its chemical examination and there was no symptoms of any sexual intercourse on her body. 21. PW-9 is the neighbour of the appellant as well as the victim, who stated in his evidence that on the date of incident in the noon at about 2:00-2:30 pm, when he went to his terrace, he saw that the appellant was committing rape upon the victim, who is aged about 11 years. He saw the incident that the appellant was also committing unnatural sexual intercourse with the victim. Instead of raising his alarm, he got it recorded in his mobile phone as the proof of the incident, but he could not understand what he can do. On the next day, he informed the cousin brother of the victim and shown the video clipping to him. At that time, he got transferred the said video in his mobile phone and after lodging of the report, the police has seized the mobile phone from him vide seizure memo/Exhibit P-15. 15 *******He admitted that after getting a transfer in the mobile phone of the cousin brother of the victim, he has got deleted the said video from his own mobile phone. He voluntarily stated that the victim is a differently abled child and if he would disclose the incident orally to her family members, they might not have believed upon him and therefore, as a proof of the incident, he has got recorded the incident in his mobile phone and after transferring it in the mobile phone of the cousin brother of the victim, he has got deleted the same from his own mobile phone. When the cousin brother of the victim has disclosed the incident to the parents of the victim, her father has called him and inquired about the incident and then he disclosed them also about the incident. When the video clipping stored in the form of CD, which is Article A-3 was played in the Court and shown it to the witness, he admitted that the same video he has prepared in his mobile phone at the time of incident. He also admitted that the CD of Article A-3 has not been prepared by him and he did not know as to who has prepared the same, but he voluntarily stated that the video clipping available in the CD has been prepared by him through his own mobile phone, but for minor discrepancies which are trivial in nature, this witness has remained firm in witnessing the incident and preparing the video of the incident and this witness is reliable in collaboration with the other evidence available in the case as well as the evidence of the victim and her parents. 22. PW-10 is the person who runs the computer shop. The police along with the father of the victim came to his shop and has got prepared the CD of the obscene video clipping available in the mobile phone of 16 the father of the victim and then he prepared 4 CDs and given it to the police. He also issued a certificate/Exhibit P-16 and P-17. After about 2 months, he also prepared the pen drive from the said CD. *******In cross examination, he admitted that the CD and pen drive, which he prepared on the instance of police authority, he did not see the video clipping and directly given it to the police after preparing CD and pen drive. 23. PW-11 is the cousin brother of the victim, has stated in his evidence that the victim is aged about 11 years and differently abled child. He came to know about the incident on 28.06.2021 through his neighbor (PW-9). He informed about the incident that the appellant has committed rape and unnatural sexual intercourse upon his cousin sister, who is differently abled child and shown the video clipping which he has prepared at the time of commission of the offence in which the victim was suffered the offence of rape and unnatural sexual intercourse is visible. He has got transferred the said video from the mobile phone of PW-9 to his own mobile phone and thereafter forwarded it to the mobile phone of the father of the victim. He also informed about the incident to his father and the father of the victim and thereafter they had gone to the house of the appellant, but he did not open his door and then they called the police. The police has seized the mobile phone of PW-9 vide seizure memo/Exhibit P- 15. He admitted that the police has not seized his mobile phone in which he has got the video clipping transferred from the mobile phone of PW-9. He further admitted that he himself has not seen the incident and his sister. His sister also had not disclosed about the 17 incident. He voluntarily stated that since she is a differently abled child, she could not disclose about the incident. He also admitted that on 27.06.2021, his neighbor/PW-9 had not informed about the incident. 24. It is not the case and it is not in dispute that on 27.06.2021 itself, the incident came into knowledge of PW-11 or the parents of the victim. PW-9 who has got prepared the video after witnessing the incident, has himself stated that he himself was shocked from the incident and was not able to understand what to do and what not to do and on the next day, he informed the incident to the cousin brother of the victim PW-11. The PW-11 has got the video transferred in his own mobile phone and forwarded it to the father of the victim. The key person of the evidence who witnessed the incident is PW-9, who remained firm in saying that he seen the incident that the appellant committing rap and unnatural sexual intercourse with the victim. 25. It is not seriously disputed by the defence that the victim is not a differently challenged child. The certificate/Article A-2 has also been produced by the prosecution, which has been issued by the District Medical Board Raipur, in which it has been stated that the victim is 50% mild intellectual disability. The PW-1 has also found him suffered by mild intellectual disability. Though the learned trial Court while recording the evidence of the victim has observed that the victim has properly answered the question, but all that are not the issue here. The issue is whether the victim was suffered by sexual suffered by the offence of rape or unnatural sexual intercourse by the appellant or not, which the prosecution has duly proved by the 18 evidences of PW2 the victim, PW-3 her father, PW4- her mother, PW- 9 the person, who witnessed the incident and get it recorded in his mobile phone and PW-11 cousin brother of the victim to whom the PW-9 has informed the incident. *******Although from the examination report of the mobile phone seized from PW-9, nothing could be extracted as the same was deleted from the mobile phone and the PW-9 himself has admitted that after getting it transferred the video clipping in the mobile phone of PW-11, he has got deleted the obscene video from his mobile phone, but from the mobile phone of father of the victim, the CD's and pen drive have been prepared by PW-10, who also proved the same and when the said CD was played in the Court before the witness, they duly proved the same and the person, who prepared the said video, has accepted that he has got it recorded. Even if in Exhibit P-31, it has been reported that no data can be recovered from the mobile phone of PW-9, it could not affect the prosecution's case as there are sufficient material available in the record, in which the guilt of the appellant has duly been proved. 26. Further, even if no injuries have been found on the body of the victim on her private part or any other part of the body, the nature of the offence that the appellant has committed unnatural sexual intercourse with the victim by inserting her penis in the mouth of the victim, no injuries might have been received by the victim by the said act. 19 27. From consideration of the overall evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and based on the proper appreciation of the evidence as well as law laid down by the honorable Supreme Court in various pronouncements. 28. In the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny, (2017) 2 SCC 51, in Para 31 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : “31…………….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? 20 The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance {See Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003) 8 SCC 551. Notwithstanding this legal position, in the instant case, we even find enough corroborative material as well, which is discussed hereinabove.” 29. In the matter of Prahlad v. State of Haryana, (2015) 8 SCC 688, in Para 17 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : “17. It has to be borne in mind that an offence of rape is basically an assault on the human rights of a victim. It is an attack on her individuality. It creates an incurable dent in her right and free will and personal sovereignty over the physical frame. Everyone in any civilised society has to show respect for the other individual and no individual has any right to invade on physical frame of another in any manner. It is not only an offence but such an act creates a scar in the marrows of the mind of the victim. Anyone who indulges in a crime of such nature not only does he violate the penal provision of IPC but also the right of equality, right of individual identity and in the ultimate eventuality an important aspect of rule of law which is a constitutional commitment. The Constitution of India, an organic document, confers rights. It does not condescend or confer any allowance or grant. It recognises rights and the rights are strongly entrenched in the constitutional framework, its ethos and philosophy, subject to certain limitations. Dignity of every citizen flows from the fundamental precepts of the equality clause engrafted under Article 14 and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, for they are the "fons juris" of our Constitution. The said rights are constitutionally secured.” 30. For the foregoing reasons and also in view of the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient evidence in the case to hold guilty of the appellant for the alleged commission of offence and we find no 21 reason to upset the finding recorded by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the alleged offence. Therefore the appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits and liable to be and hereby dismissed. The appellant shall undergo the entire jail sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. 31. 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. 32. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved