1 2025:CGHC:41988-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1317 of 2023 Tengo Kujur S/o Naihar Sai Kujur Aged About 60 Years R/o Lampahad, Police Station Lemru, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lemru, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.K.Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20/08/2025 1 The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 44/2020 by the learned Additional Sessions 2 Judge (F.T.C.) Korba, District Korba, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Fine Default Sentence 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) Life imprisonment Rs. 2000/- R.I. for 6 months 354 IPC RI for 1 year Rs. 1000/- R.I. for 3 months. 2 The appellant/accused was charged for the offence under Section 354, 509A and 376(2)(f) of the IPC alleging that on the incident date 15.05.2020 at 10:00 a.m., in the Aamapani forest road between Lampahad and Badgaon under Police Station, Lemru Korba area, he used criminal force by holding her hands and arms and pulling her with the intent to outrage the modesty of the victim and being the maternal uncle-in-law and relative of the victim, he violated her privacy with the intent to outrage her modesty and being a relative of the victim, he forcefully raped the victim. 3 The admitted fact in the case is that the victim is a major lady aged 30 years, and the accused are know to each other, the accused being the maternal uncle and father-in-law of the victim. It is also undisputed in the case that the victim is deaf and mute. 4 The prosecution case in brief is that a complaint was made on behalf of the victim to the effect that she had gone to the Badgaon Ration shop with her maternal uncle i.e. appellant Tengo Kujur on 15.05.2020 at 10:00 a.m. Appellant forcibly pulled the victim by her arms in the Aamapani forest road between Lampahad and Badgaon with the intention of dishonouring her. The victim is deaf and mute, she told her 3 husband about the incident by gestures. On 16.05.2020, the incident was reported to the entire village in a meeting. The appellant/accused was also called in the meeting and when questioned, he said that he had made a mistake. First Information Report bearing Crime No. 15/2020 (Ex.P/2) was registered against the accused under Section 354, 509A of the IPC. Since the victim was deaf and mute, the statement of the victim was recorded as per her statement with the help of a deaf expert. After obtaining consent for the medical examination of the victim, her medical examination (Ex.P/19A) was conducted. During the investigation, as per the victim's statement, a map of the scene of the incident (Ex.P/07) and a Patwari map (Ex.P/08) were prepared. The appellant/accused's underwear was seized in presence of witnesses as per the seizure memo (Ex.P/11). The vaginal slide of the victim and the sealed panty worn at the time of the incident were seized in the presence of witnesses as per the seizure memo (Ex.P/6) and the sari worn by the victim at the time of the incident was seized in the presence of witnesses as per the seizure memo (Ex.P/10). Since the victim was deaf, her statement was recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the language specialist Anna Rosh Mary Tirkey converted the gestures of the deaf person and the statements of the witnesses related to the incident were recorded as per their statements. On finding evidence of the accused committing the crime, he was arrested as per the arrest memo (Ex.P/13). Medical examination of the accused was conducted (Exhibit P/9). The seized pubic hair, vaginal slide were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Bilaspur for FSL examination. The test report received from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory is Exhibit P/17. The charge sheet was prepared and presented before learned Judicial 4 Magistrate First Class Korba, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 19.11.2020. 5 The learned trial Court framed charges against the convict/accused Tengo Kujur for the offences under Sections 354, 509A and 376(2)(f) of the IPC. The accused denied the charges and demanded trial. 6 In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 20 exhibits. 7 The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the appellant expressed his ignorance to most of the questions and some of them were denied as well. He stated that he was falsely implicated and that he should be acquitted. 8 The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 9 Mr. C.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim is deaf and dumb and she has not spoken and made any statement before the court. The translation done by the language expert is not reliable and hence the conviction cannot be determined on the basis of the statement of the victim alone. Hence, it is requested to acquit the accused. As per the provision of section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is further submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and there are omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. All the witnesses are interested witness and as such, the conviction cannot be based upon their testimonies. There is no eye witness to the incident. No external or internal injuries have been found by the Doctor 5 who examined the victim and as such, the commission of offence itself is doubtful. 10 On the other hand, Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the appellant has committed a heinous crime of rape against a deaf and mute girl and the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences in question. The same does not warrant any interference and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12 Annarosh Merry Tigga (PW-1) is a Teacher in the School meant for deaf, mute and blind. She teaches the mute and deaf students. She had translated the gestures of the victim into statement. 13 In the case in hand, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 20.09.2021 had decided to treat the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164(5)(b) of the Cr.P.C. to be the examination in chief. The said Section provides that a statement recorded under clause (a) of a person, who is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, shall be considered a statement in lieu of examination-in-chief, as specified in Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) such that the maker of the statement can be cross-examined on such statement, without the need for recording the same at the time of trial. 14 Victim (PW-2) in her statement under Section 164(5)(b) Cr.P.C. has stated that she did not recollect as to on which date the incident had happened. She had gone to buy rice from the ration shop at 9 a.m. At that 6 time, her uncle (Mama) caught hold of her hand and legs and made her fall down. After disrobing her, her hands and legs were tied and after covering her face, she was assaulted on neck and chest and thereafter the accused made forceful physical relation with her. In cross- examination, she has specifically stated that the appellant had made physical relation with her and that she had informed the incident to her husband also. 15 Bihani Bai (PW-3) is the mother-in-law of the victim. She also knew the appellant. She stated that the appellant had committed rape upon the victim when she had gone to purchase rice from the ration shop. This incident was informed by the victim through gestures. She further stated that a meeting was held in the village where the appellant firstly denied of having committed rape but later on he admitted the said fact. PW-4, who is one of the acquaintance of the victim, has also made similar deposition. 16 Dr. Atik Siddique (PW-11) is the Doctor who had examined the accused/ convict. In his report (Exhibit P/-9A), he has opined that cremasteric reflex was present, his secondary sexual characteristics were well developed and the appellant was found fully capable of performing sexual intercourse. Smegma and its foul smell was also absent. 17 The victim was also medically examined in which Dr. Monika Ekka (PW- 10) vide her report (Exhibit P/19A) found her secondary sexual characteristics to be well developed, hymen ruptured, no sign of congestion in genital region. She prepared two vaginal slides and handed over to the Constable for FSL examination. She opined that definite opinion with regard to sexual intercourse could be given only after FSL report. 7 18 The articles seized by the police during the course of investigation i.e. the undergarment of the victim and the accused, the slides were sent to the FSL for examination in which as per the FSL report (Exhibit P/17), in all the three articles i.e. the slides, the undergarment of the victim and the undergarment of the accused, human sperms and semen were found present which proves the commission of the offence. 19 The appellant, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., could not give any explanation as to why the victim would name the appellant or falsely implicate him in the offence in question. Though the victim is deaf and mute, but she appears to be fully capable of answering the questions asked and explain the act done by the appellant against her. 20 In the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573, the Supreme Court observed and held that that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. 21 In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, {(2019) 11 SCC 575}, it was observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It was further observed and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 22 In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, {(2018) 18 SCC 34}, the Supreme Court observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an 8 accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. 23 The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi {2012 (8) SCC 21} held as under: “22. 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 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 9 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 to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 24 Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and as observed herein above, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the victim. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the appellant even relying upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible is the one taken by the learned trial Court. 25 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 any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/ convict. 26 Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10 27 The appellant is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence as has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 28 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentences 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. 29 Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.26 11:47:28 +0530