1 2025:CGHC:13799-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1072 of 2021 Xy Accused Not Mentioned Aged About 20 Years Presently Residing At Near Nature Care Nursery, Vip Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Permanent Residing At Malargarh, P.S. Mungawali, District- Ashok Nagar (M.P.), Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant(s) (In Jail) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ..Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 .03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.01 10:51:16 +0530 2 directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2021, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, First (FTC) Special Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 103 of 2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year additional imprisonment. Section 376(2)(F) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months R.I. more. Section 376(2)(N) of the IPC 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months R.I. more. Section 376(2)(M) of the IPC 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months R.I. more. Section 377 of the IPC 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months R.I. more. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the mother (PW-3) of the victim lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) at Telibandha Police Station, 3 stating that her ex-husband had abandoned her and married another woman. They had two children together: the 9-year-old daughter, the victim and a 6-year-old son. About a year after the ex-husband's remarriage, the victim's mother married the accused (victim's stepfather) in a temple. They lived together with their children in a farm house near Nature Care Nursery, where the accused worked as a watchman. On 05.06.2021, at about 1:00 p.m., the mother (PW-3) of the victim was sleeping in her room while the children playing outside. The brother (PW- 2) of the victim rushed in, frightened, and told his mother that the accused was sexually assaulting the victim. The mother immediately intervened and found the victim bleeding profusely from her private parts. The victim (PW-1) told her mother that the accused had forcibly inserted his private part into her genital area, causing severe pain and bleeding. The accused confessed to the crime, stating that the victim was not his biological daughter. He threatened the victim's mother not to report the incident to the Police and fled the scene on his bicycle. The victim's mother then took her children to the Police Station and lodged a report against the accused. 4. Based on the written complaint of the mother, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against the accused under Sections 376 of the IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act. During the investigation, additional sections were added, including 376AB, 376(2)(c), 376(2)(d), and 377 of the IPC. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P/40. 5. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First (FTC) Special Court, Raipur (C.G.) and the case was registered as Special Criminal Case No. 103 of 2021. The statements of witnesses were recorded. 4 6. Learned trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 376AB, 376(2)(c), 376(2)(d), 376(2)(e) and 377 of the IPC and Section 5(ठ)(ड)(ढ)/6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant. 7. In order to establish the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which he denied the materials appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph-2 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law. There is no evidence against the appellant and the case of the prosecution is based on surmises, so the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. He further submits that the learned trial Court has erred in believing the statement of the victim because there is large number of contradictions amongst the statement of the prosecution witnesses. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 9. 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. 5 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered 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. 11. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/11) has stated that on the day of incident, she and her brother (PW-2) were playing and their mother was sleeping in the room. Then her father, Arjun took the victim to the barn and did dirty things with her. He inserted something in her private parts and it was bleeding and it was very painful and swollen and she was crying. He pointed towards his private part and inserted it in her mouth. Her father had removed all her clothes and told her not to tell her mother. The accused told her to go inside the water drum and tell her mother that something had been cut. 12. Regarding the incident, the victim (PW-1), stated in her deposition that her father had done dirty things with her. When the learned trial Court asked what dirty things her father had done with her, the victim replied that her father (accused) had removed all his clothes and her too, including her frock and panties. Then, her father inserted his private part into her private area and also into her mouth. He also inserted his private part into her anal area, which caused bleeding, severe pain, and swelling. When her mother arrived, she pushed the father and quarreled with him. Thereafter, mother (PW-2) of the victim lodged a report at the Police Station and took the victim to the hospital, where she was admitted. 13. The brother (PW-2) of the victim, who is minor and also the eyewitness of the incident, corroborated the fact that prior to the incident, 6 the victim and he were playing in front of their house when the accused took the victim to the barn. This has been confirmed by the victim herself in her testimony. The victim's brother has also corroborated the facts of the incident, stating that after playing for a while, he peeped into the barn and saw the accused committing the offence with the victim. He then went and called his mother, who came to the scene and witnessed the victim bleeding from her private parts. 14. The mother (PW-3) of the victim, stated in her deposition that the accused is her second husband. The victim is the child of her first husband, and the accused is the victim's stepfather. The statement of victim's mother was recorded on 12.07.2021. Regarding the incident, the victim's mother stated that on 05.06.2021, while she was sleeping in her room, her son (PW-2) (around 6 years old) came to her and said that something had happened to the victim. She then went to her neighbour, namely, Raj Rishi Bhatia (PW-14) and told him that something had happened to her daughter. Together, they went to the Police Station and lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/1) against her husband/accused, which led to the registration of the FIR (Ex.P/2) against him. In her chief examination, the victim's mother stated that her son told her that the accused/father had done something wrong with her daughter/victim, and her daughter was crying. When she went to the barn (the scene of the incident), she found her daughter standing naked outside the shed, crying, and the accused was not there. 15. As per case of the prosecution, the date of birth of the victim is 06.07.2012, on this basis on the date of incident i.e. 05.06.2021, the victim was aged about 08 years and 11 months. To substantiate this fact, 7 prosecution has adduced enrollment register and school admission register (Exs.P/21C & P/22C) and report card (Article A/1) of Class 1st of Government Primary School Shanti Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). The enrollment register and school admission register (Exs.P/21C & P/22C), have been proved by the Headmistress (PW-7) of the said school. This witness has clearly deposed in her deposition that in the enrollment register and school admission register information with regard to victim has been noted that she was admitted in Class-1 on 07.08.2019. She has also stated that as per this Register, the date of birth of victim is 06.07.2012. 16. Dr. Smt. Rajani Chourasiya (PW-5), the medical ofÏcer who has examined the victim, has deposed that she found that there was contused swelling about 2 diameter surrounding the anus and there was severe pain, due to which the victim weeping loudly and disallowing to touch her anus. Her examination report is Ex.P/8. 17. Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta (PW-8), who has examined the accused, had stated that on general examination he found that the accused was normal and his mental condition was also normal. His secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed. Cremastic reflex was present, there was no injury on his body and smegma was absent. According to his opinion, the accused was capable to commit sexual intercourse. The report given him is Ex.P/25. 18. 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 8 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 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.…” 19. 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 is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his 9 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 difÏcult 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. 20. 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 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 10 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. 21. 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 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. 22. 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 11 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 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 12 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 to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 23. Reverting to the present case, since the accused being the father of the victim did not hesitate to commit such preposterous and bestial act upon his minor daughter and the victim was completely helpless as her father, who is naturally entrusted with the noble duty of caring and protecting her, could not have control over his lust and tried to quench the sexual thirst by exploiting her. Further, that this degrading act of the accused stupefies the judicial conscience of the Court as it is unthinkable 13 to even comprehend that in a country where women are traditionally viewed as an incarnation of the God and daughters are worshiped as ‘Devi’, such heinous acts are being committed by a father. A daughter needs a father to be the standard against which she will judge all men. When the father who is the creator of the girl child and supposed to act as her protector, takes the role of the predator, it would be sheer betrayal of someone’s trust and faith and has got serious impact on humanity, therefore, in the matter at hand, there was no doubt that being in a position of authority and trust, the accused misused his position and sexually exploited his innocent minor daughter and raped her. 24. As per the statement of the victim (PW-1), she has stated that she knew the accused, who is her father and they live at farmhouse. She clearly stated in her statement that on the date of incident i.e. on 05.06.2021, the accused entered his penis in her urinal part and mouth. The accused has also entered in penis in her rectum, due to which there was bleeding and severe pain. 25. Considering the evidence of the victim (PW-1) who has specifically stated the act of the appellant, evidence of her brother (PW-2), who is the eyewitness of the incident and the materials available on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First (FTC) Special Court, Raipur (C.G.), has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(m) and 377 of the IPC. Therefore, we do not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 14 26. In the result, 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 sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 27. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the 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 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. 29. The OfÏce 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/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan