1 CRA No.1068/2021 2025:CGHC:23006-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1068 of 2021 1 - Satish Mahar Jaimin S/o Late Narad Jaimin Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Ward No. 12, Siddhiqui Gali, Police Station- Kotwali Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manish Yadav S/o Kashi Yadav Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Ward No. 12, Siddhiqui Gali, Police Station- Kotwali Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 11.06.2025 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.13 14:45:26 +0530 2 CRA No.1068/2021 This criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05/08/2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court(POCSO), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.12/2019, whereby the appellants/accused have been convicted for the offence and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of the IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, additional R.I. for 1 year each Under 366 of the IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.5000/- in default,additional R.I. for 1 year each Under 376(D) of the IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default,additional R.I. for 1 year to each appellants till the natural death Under 376(2)(L ) of the IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default,additional R.I. for 1 year to each appellants till the natural death All the sentences are directed to run concurrently 1. Facts of the case, in brief, is that from 03/02/2019 to 04/02/2019, the appellants have committed sexual intercourse with the victim, 3 CRA No.1068/2021 who is aged about 17 years, at the house of appellant No.1. Thereafter, victim narrated the whole incident to the police and subsequently, the police registered an FIR vide Ex-P/9 against the appellants/accused. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-8. After due investigation, the appellants were arrested vide Ex.P/36 and P/37. Medical Examination of victim was conducted by Dr. Sohadra Thakur and submitted a report vide Ex.P/12. 2. The trial court has framed charges against the appellants for the aforementioned offence and the appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 3. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents. The statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which they denied the material appearing against them and stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the medical report has not supported the case of prosecution and there are material contradiction and omission in the statement/deposition of prosecution witnesses. He submits that on the date of incident, 4 CRA No.1068/2021 the victim went to her friend's house without informing her parents. He submits that the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellants only on the basis of assumption and presumption and the finding given by the learned trial Court against the appellants is perverse and contrary to evidence on record. Also, looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the alleged offence is not made out against the appellants and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Now, the question which arises for consideration is, what are the circumstances which shows that the victim was raped by the appellants/accused. 8. The victim (PW-7) has stated in her evidence that the incident took place last year at night at the house of accused/appellant No.1 Satish Mahar Jaimin. She deposed that she had left to go to 5 CRA No.1068/2021 the house of her aunt (Bua), then accused Satish and Manish called her, upon which she went there. When she went to the house of the appellant/Satish, she deposed that the appellant/Satish touched her body, and tied her hands and legs, thereafter, committed sexual intercourse with her. Subsequently, appellant/Manish also committed sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that at the time when the appellants committing sexual intercourse with her, she was suffering from pain and the blood was oozing out from her private part. 9. Durga Chouhan(PW-1), mother of victim stated in her evidence that her sister-in-law(Jethani) told her that victim had not gone to her friend's house, she had gone to the nearby house. Then she asked victim and thereafter victim narrated the whole incident that when she was returning after giving the lunch box, both the appellants i.e. Satish and Manish called her near their house. When she went to the house of appellant/Satish, both the appellants tied her hands; gagged her mouth; and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, FIR was lodged against the appellants. She stated in her evidence that when she asked the victim why she had not told her about the incident, then the victim said that the appellants threatened her not to disclose to anyone about the incident. 10. Dr. Sharad Manore (PW-10), Psychiatrist, who examined the victim stated in his evidence that on 12.02.2019, Constable No. 6 CRA No.1068/2021 1071 of Police Station Kotwali brought the victim before him for examination of her mental condition, which he had examined. He stated that when he started interrogation with the victim to examine her, he found that the victim was mentally underdeveloped as per her age. She did not know how to read and write and she also did not know how to cook. He further stated that the victim was unable to solve simple Math questions and was also unable to recognize colors. On being asked by her mother, she told that the victim is mentally underdeveloped since childhood. 11. Dr. Sohadra Thakur (PW-4), has conducted the medical examination of victim and submitted a report vide Ex.P-12, in which, she found that the victim was conscious and mentally unstable. Pulse 78 per minute, BP 110/70, no injury marks were found on external organs. Secondary sexual characteristics were present. As per the victim, her last menstrual period was on 14.01.2019. She stated that there were no signs of injury on the genitals. Her hymen was torn at 6, 1 and 2 o clock position. Two fingers were entering the vagina. 12. Medical Examination of the appellants/accused were conducted by Dr. V.P. Maheshwar (PW-6) and submitted a report vide Ex.P/14 and P/16 and opined that there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant/accused cannot perform sexual intercourse. 13. In FSL report vide Ex.P-42, semen stains and human sperm were 7 CRA No.1068/2021 found in Janghiya of appellant/Satish. 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (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 8 CRA No.1068/2021 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 recise, 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.” 15. Also, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, 1990 SCC 550 held as under:- “A prosecutrix 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 an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the 9 CRA No.1068/2021 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 prosecutrix. 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 prosecutrix 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 prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix 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 prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” 16. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of above principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that from the statement of victim (PW-7) that when she had left to go to the house of her aunt (Bua), both the appellants called her and when she went to the house of the appellant/Satish, he started touched her body, and tied her hands and legs, thereafter, committed sexual intercourse with 10 CRA No.1068/2021 her. Thereafter, appellant/Manish also committed sexual intercourse with her. In her evidence, she further stated that at the time when the appellants committing sexual intercourse with her, she was suffering from pain the blood was oozing out from her private part. 17. Also, Durga Chouhan (PW-1), mother of victim, stated in her evidence that that when victim was returning after giving the lunch box, both the appellants called her near their house and when she went to the house of appellant/Satish, both the appellants tied her hands and mouth and committed sexual intercourse with her one by one. 18. Importantly, looking to the statement of Dr. Sharad Manore (PW- 10), Psychiatrist, who examined the victim and stated in his evidence that the victim was mentally underdeveloped as per her age and neither she does not know the basic calculation of Math nor cooking. Hence, the accused/appellants have committed the crime of gang rape of a mentally challenged girl by keeping her in the house overnight, which is a serious and inhuman crime. 19. In the result, when we look at the evidence of victim, we find that she has categorically stated about the sexual intercourse that was committed by both the appellants. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of victim (PW-7), evidence of Durga Chouhan (PW-1), mother of victim, evidences of Dr. Sharad Manore (PW-10) and FSL report, we are of the considered 11 CRA No.1068/2021 opinion that the appellants committed sexual intercourse with her and also threatened her for not disclose about the incident to anyone, therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of victim. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellants is hereby upheld. 20. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 21. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing the 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. 22. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Sourabh