1 / 17 2025:CGHC:15390-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 839 of 2021 1 - Suraj Prajapati @ Suryanarayan S/o Ramnath Prajapati Aged About 33 Years R/o Village (Presently Residing At) 321, Edge Complex, Vidhansabha Road, Saddu, Police Station Mova, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address - Village Ghaghwar, Police Station Bhandariya, District Garhwa, Jharkhand. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bemetra, District Bemetra, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 02/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.07 10:34:37 +0530 2 / 17 2. This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2021, passed by the learned Special Judge, Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G., in Special Case No. 02/2020, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 03 months. Under Section 376 (A, B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5M read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Life Imprisonment (Rest of the life span) and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 03 months All the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 02nd & 3rd June, 2020 while the prosecutrix, who was aged about 7 years & who belongs to Schedule Caste Community, was sleeping with her grandmother in the courtyard of her house, situated in village Garra at National Highway 30, at that time at about 2.00 o’ clock in the night, her grandmother found that the prosecutrix was not present in the bed, then she informed the father of the prosecutrix about it. The family 3 / 17 members of the prosecutrix searched her, however, her whereabouts could not be traced out. Thereafter, in the morning on 03/06/2020 the father of the prosecutrix when was going to lodge the report in the police station at that time at about 7.30 AM he received an information over his mobile that a girl near Village Matka is lying on the side of the road and she has stated herself to be resident of Village Garra and she has been taken for treatment to District Hospital Bemetara. On receiving the aforesaid information, the father of the prosecutrix immediately rushed to the District Hospital Bemetara and he identified the said girl as his daughter. Thereafter, on being enquired from her, she disclosed that while she was sleeping in the night at that time one unknown person took her to Bemetara in a Truck and committed rape with her in the said Truck and thereafter he left the said girl on the road and fled away with the Truck, thereafter, she while weeping slept near a shop on the road. In the morning she disclosed her name to the villagers, thereafter, the police took her to the hospital. 4. On the information of the father of the complainant, Dehati Nalisi was lodged in the district hospital Bemetara and the truck in question and its driver were traced. The complainant was given medical treatment in the district hospital Bemetara. During the examination of the prosecutrix, she told the doctor everything about the incident. During the examination, injury was found in the vagina of the prosecutrix. There was bleeding. Injury marks were found in the vagina and the valve. Her virginity was broken and fresh blood was flowing. Thereafter, the Gynecologist in the district hospital Bemetara, seeing the above 4 / 17 condition of the prosecutrix, found a tear in the back wall of her vagina, which was repaired by stitching and the examination report was given, according to which it appeared that the prosecutrix had been sexually assaulted. The vaginal slide of the prosecutrix was prepared and sent for chemical examination. 5. During the investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the school certificate and caste certificate of the prosecutrix were seized to confirm her date of birth. The complainant's vaginal slab, anal slab, etc. were collected and sealed for DNA testing. Identification of the suspicious truck as per the information given by the complainant, as the complainant had told that the head/cabin of the truck was white and there was a ship symbol on the door, the seat appeared to be of light yellow colour. To trace the said suspicious truck, the CCTV camera located at Signal Chowk Bemetara, CCTV footage installed on the nearby road, mobile tower dump etc. were thoroughly examined. During the investigation, on closely watching the CCTV footage on the basis of the time of the incident, it was found that the truck of Urja Logistics was moving from Bemetara Signal Chowk towards Simga. 6. On the basis of the above, during the investigation, after enquiring from the owner of the Urja Logistics truck, it was found that the accused was travelling on National Highway 30 Kawardha-Bemetara Simga at the time of the incident and that it had a GPS system installed. On the basis of the GPS system, by checking the incident date and the 5 / 17 movement of the vehicle before and after it, the location of the said suspicious vehicle and its driver was found to be in Jabalpur on 20.06.2020 and it was found to be coming towards Bemetara after being chased from there. The said vehicle and its driver accused Suraj Prajapati were caught near Garra Bemetara Tiraha on 20.06.2020 and the identification of accused Suraj Prajapati and the vehicle was done from the prosecutor. Samples of both the accused and the prosecutor were taken and sent for DNA testing. The accused has been found to be involved in the present crime. After examining the complainant, her vaginal slide obtained from the hospital was seized, a visual map of the crime scene was prepared, the accused Suraj Prajapati was arrested, the seized items were chemically tested, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and after investigation, the accused was prosecuted. Accused Suraj Prajapati has denied the alleged crime and sought trial. 7. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G. for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (A, B) of the IPC, Section 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19898. The statements of witnesses were recorded. 8. Learned trial Court framed charges read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt. In order to bring home the offence, the 6 / 17 prosecution examined 27 witnesses. 9. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document. 10. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who have committed aforesaid offence, convicted and sentenced him in the aforementioned manner, against which the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused/appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated and the prosecution has completely failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He would next contend that there are contradiction in the statement of the witnesses, therefore, the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant. He would lastly contend that in such circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for by this Court. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered 7 / 17 their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 14. The father of the prosecutrix has been examined as PW-1 and he stated that in the intervening night of 2/3.06.2020 his daughter i.e. the prosecutrix after having dinner slept with his mother on the bed in the courtyard outside the house. At around 2.00 in the night his mother told him that the prosecutrix was not on the bed. Then they searched for the prosecutrix in the vicinity but could not find her. Thereafter, in the morning when he was going to the police station to lodge a report, at that time a police constable called him and informed that a girl has been found across the road in village Matka, she told herself to be resident of village Garra, she has been brought to the district hospital for treatment. On receiving the above information he immediately went to the district hospital Bemetara, where he found his daughter who was admitted in the hospital. He asked her what happened then she told him that she was sleeping with her grandmother at night, at that time someone gagged her and took her away in a truck, she was asleep at that time, she woke up when she sat in the truck. On asking his daughter, she told that she had seen the Bemetara signal chowk when she got off the truck. His daughter also told that the truck driver was taking her ahead when she felt like going to the bathroom, so he stopped the truck and got off the truck. After making her go to the bathroom, the driver made her sit in the truck again and did bad things with her in the truck itself. The said statement of the father of the victim remained unrebutted 8 / 17 during cross-examination. 15. The Grandmother of the prosecutrix has been examined as PW-2 she in her statement stated that on the intervening night of 2/3.06.2020 her daughter after having dinner slept with her on the bed in the courtyard outside the house. At around 2.00 in the night she woke up when the buffalo made a sound and when she got up she saw that the prosecutrix was not on the bed. Then she told her son Rohit, then they searched for the prosecutrix nearby but she was not found, meanwhile in the morning her son when was going to the police station to lodge a report, then he came to know that the prosecutrix has been found across the road from Matka and she has been brought to the district hospital for treatment. She further stated that on receiving the above information, her son immediately went to the District Hospital Bemetara. After that she also went there and found her granddaughter admitted in the hospital. She asked her what happened, then the prosecutrix told her that while she was sleeping with her at night, at that time someone gagged her and took her away in a truck, she was asleep at that time, she woke up when she sat in the truck. This witness further stated that on being asked, the prosecutrix told that she had seen the Bemetara signal chowk when she got off the truck. The prosecutrix also told that the truck driver was taking her ahead and she felt like going to the bathroom, so he stopped the truck and got off the truck. After making her go to the bathroom, the driver made her sit in the truck again and did bad things with her in the truck itself. Thereafter. When she cried, the truck driver got her down from the truck and left her on the road and 9 / 17 went ahead. She had seen the truck driver, he was wearing a chadda and vest. 16. The victim has been examined as PW-3. In her deposition before the trial Court and on being a question put with regard to the date of incident and as to what happened with her she has stated that she was sleeping along with her grandmother in the courtyard of her house at that time in the night someone took her and after making her sit in the Truck she woke up from her sleep. The appellant was riding the Truck. She further stated that she used to come to Bemetara School and she saw the signal light in the road. The appellant /driver of the Truck extended threat to kill her and asked her to remain silent. Thereafter, she said him that she wants to answer natuer’s call on that the driver stopped the Truck and after making her go to the bathroom, the driver made her sit in the truck again and did bad things with her in the truck itself. She further stated that thereafter, the appellant committed rape with her because of that she started crying and started screaming and the blood was oozing from her vagina, thereafter, the Truck Driver got her off the truck. She identified the Truck and Truck Driver. 17. As per case of the prosecution, the date of birth of the victim is 10/05/2013 on this basis on the initial date of incident i.e. in the year 2020, the victim was aged about 7 years and the accused committed rape with the minor girl after abducting her from her house from the lawful custody of her parents. To substantiate this fact, prosecution has adduced Dhakhil Kharij Register and the Birth Certificate (Ex. P/8) 10 / 17 issued by Gram Panchayat Karesara, Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara, wherein the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 10/05/2013. 18. Dr. Indira Kujur PW-15, who examined the prosecutrix, stated that she examined the private parts of the prosecutrix and she did not find any external injury marks. There was redness in the Libya Majora. The victim's virginity was torn. The back wall of the victim's vagina was visible torn, which she later repaired by stitching. There was a blood clot around the victim's vagina and fresh blood was also leaking. This witness further stated that the injury was found in the private parts of the victim and bleeding was oozing from her vagina and her virginity was torn and the posterior part of the vagina was found torn, which she had repaired by stitching, that condition was within 24 hours of examination and it did not appear to be a normal condition but as a result of forceful penetration of a smooth object like a male penis. She had given a separate report giving opinion that a conclusion can be drawn regarding the said condition of the victim on the basis of other reports and chemical examination of vaginal slit and smear. 19. In the Indian society refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society and when in 11 / 17 the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted, is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. A woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. The observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan, reported in (AIR 1952 SC 54) were: “The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge.…” 20. Crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault - it 12 / 17 is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Court, therefore, shoulders 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 victim, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the victim 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 victim must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestation. This position was highlighted in State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384. 21. A victim of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of 13 / 17 an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the victim. There is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’) similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the victim it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the victim must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But, if a victim is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is own to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the victim does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, reported in AIR 1998 SC 635 has held that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime, but is a victim of another 14 / 17 person’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 held as under:- “In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under 15 / 17 no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version 16 / 17 to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 24. As per the statement of the victim (PW-3), she has stated that she know the accused present in the Court. The accused person abducted from her house while she was sleeping and not only committed rape with her but also left the minor girl on the road alone without thinking anything. 25. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidences of the victim (PW-3) who has specifically stated the act of the appellant, evidences of her father (PW-1) and her grandmother (PW-2), Birth Certificate (Ex.P/8), DNA report (Ex.P/106), FSL report (Ex.P/96) (Ex.P/107), statement of Dr. Indira Kujur PW-15, the medical officer who has examined the victim and MLC report, it is quite clear from the documentary and oral evidence presented by the prosecution on record and its analysis that the accused abducted the minor girl from her house from the lawful custody of her parents in the night while she was sleeping and committed rape with her, thereafter, left her on the road. The DNA report is also positive and DNA evidence is highly reliable and DNA profiling is a scientifically accurate method, and DNA evidence is recognized for its reliability in linking a suspect to a crime or establishing paternity, therefore, it is a clinching evidence. The prosecution has also been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of the incident, the victim was minor i.e. below the age of 18 years and the accused on the said date, time 17 / 17 and place, committed penetrative sexual assault with the minor victim. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentenced as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 26. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 27. 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. 28. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu