1 2025:CGHC:13292-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1757 of 2023 Sanju Yadav S/o Shri Shobha Ram Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Jaagbahar, Post Kortara, Police Station Charama, Dist. Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Rajhara, Dist. Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20/03/2025 1. Today the matter is listed for hearing on IA No. 2, which is an application for urgent hearing as the appellant is in jail since 07.07.2020 and his application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2024. Hence, we proceed to hear the matter finally on merits, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C) questioning the impugned judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 54/2020 by which the learned Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Balod, District Balod, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: Conviction under Section Sentence 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) : Rigorous imprisonment (for short, RI) for 20 years with fine of Rs.3000/-. In default, 1 year RI more. 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) : RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default, 1 year RI more. 366 of IPC : RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default, 1 year RI more. All the sentences to run concurrently. 3. The appellant/convict was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (i) and (n) of the IPC and Section 5 (l)/6 of the POCSO Act, alleging that in the month of April, 2019, he abducted the victim girl, below 16 years of age, from village Dhovedand falling under Police Station Rajhara, without the consent of her guardian, from lawful guardianship and by deceitfully inducing her to marry or to have illicit sexual intercourse, thereby abducting her and raping her more than once and committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her more than once. 4. The facts of the prosecution case. in brief, are that the victim who is the complainant/informant (PW-1) appeared at Rajhara Police Station on 03.06.2020 and lodged a written report that she was the resident of village Dhobedand, and had studied up to class 9th. Her brother-in-law is i.e. the appellant, lived in a rented house with his family in Rajhara. The 3 appellant’s in-laws' house was near her house in village Dhobedand. Whenever the appellant used to come to his in-laws' house, he used to talk to her and tell her that he loved her and would marry her and keep her as wife. Stating all these, he used to ask her to meet him and somewhere and April 2019, he took her near the railway track on the outskirts of the village and forcibly raped her at night despite knowing that she was a minor and continued to do such wrongful acts with her by luring her to marry and keep her as his wife, due to which she became 6 months pregnant in December 2019. On the basis of the above written complaint of the victim, the accused was found to have committed a crime and an FIR was registered under Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (n) of the IPC and Section 4, 5j(ii), 5l and 6 of Act of 2012 by Police Station Rajhara under Crime No. 220/2020. After completion of the investigation, on finding evidence of crime against the appellant, a charge sheet was filed under the above mentioned Sections before the learned trial Court on 04.08.2020. 5. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (i) and (n) of the IPC and Section 5 (l)/6 of the POCSO Act, which was denied and the appellant prayed for trial. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely the victim (PW-1), father of the victim (PW-2), mother of the victim (PW-3), Smt. Mina Ramteke (PW-4), Assistant Teacher, Dr. J.J.Chunarkar, (PW-5), independent witness Umendiram Yadav (PW-6), Dr. Prabha Barman (PW-7), Tul Singh Pattavi, Investigating OfÏcer (PW-8), Sarita Tiwari, Sub Inspector (PW-9) and 4 Toshi Dilliwar (PW-10) who is the Patwari and also exhibited as many as 19 exhibits. 7. The statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein he stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, in support of his case, he has not produced any evidence. 8. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/convict as detailed in the opening paragraph. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 9. Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned trial Court has erred in law by relying on the statement of the interested witnesses. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor on the date of incident. Further, there is delay of 10 months in lodging the FIR. Even no external or internal injuries have been found on the body of the victim to hold that the appellant had committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim. The prosecution has also not attempted to obtain DNA report to hold that the child is of the appellant. It is further submitted that the incident is said to have occurred in the month of April 2019 and at the relevant point of time, the punishment prescribed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was rigorous imprisonment for not less than 10 years and as such, the learned trial Court has committed an error of law by convicting him for a period of 20 years. There are many omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5 10. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the appellant has committed a heinous crime of rape against a minor girl and that too, the said rape has led the victim to be pregnant and deliver a child in a tender age. The medical evidence clearly supports the case of the prosecution. The age of the victim has been duly proved by documentary and oral evidence and she was minor on the date of incident. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference. 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. In the case in hand, the FIR (Exhibit P/2) was lodged by the victim herself. The victim had made a written complaint to the Police wherein she has clearly stated that stated that in April, 2019, the accused/ appellant lured the victim and on the pretext of marriage, he committed rape upon her on multiple occasions and that on the date of lodging of the FIR, she was six months pregnant. Even in her statement under Section 161 before the Police, she has stated the same things. Before the trial Court, she has clearly identified the accused/appellant and stated that she had studied upto class 9th and thereafter, she used to do the labour work. She stated that her date of birth was 20.12.2003. When the victim used to go for work as a labour, she became acquainted with the appellant who also used to do the labour work. The in-laws house of the appellant was situated in the village of the victim. The appellant lured her that he wanted to marry her upon which the victim told that since the appellant was a married person with two children, she did not want to 6 make any relation with her, however, he lured the victim and committed rape upon her and lastly made physical relations in the month of February, 2020. He made physical relations since April 2019 and on 8 to 9 occasions. Thereafter, the appellant went to Hyderabad for his livelihood. In the month of December, when her menstruation stopped and there was swelling in her hands and legs, her parents came to know about the situation and till that time, she was 6 months pregnant. She delivered a baby boy on 09.06.2020 at Chikhlakasa Hospital. As her parents had also gone to Nagpur for earning livelihood, she could not inform them about the acts of the appellant on time. In cross examination, though she had admitted that if she would not have become pregnant, she would not have lodged the FIR. She further stated that the appellant was having the knowledge that she was a minor on the date incident. 13. The father (PW-2) of the victim has also stated that the victim was aged about 17 years. He was informed by the victim that the appellant had committed rape upon her. Similar deposition has been made by the mother (PW-3) of the victim. Smt. Meena Ramteke (PW-4) is the Assistant Teacher of the School, where the victim studied. According to her, as per the Admission/Discharge register (Article A) the date of birth of the victim was recorded as 20.12.2003 and was admitted in the school in Class I on 01.07.2010. If the date of birth is taken to be 20.12.2003 and the date of offence is in between April, 2019 to November, 2019, at that point of time, the age of the victim would be 15 years and 3 months and as such, she was a minor. 14. Dr. Prabha Barman (PW-7) had examined the victim where she found the victim to be of average built. Her secondary sexual character were well developed and there was no signs of injuries and on examination, she 7 was found to be 28-30 weeks pregnant. She had advised for USG examination. 15. Dr. J.K.Chunarkar (PW-5) is the Doctor who had examined the appellant and found that his secondary sexual character were well developed, his pubic hairs were well developed, the scrotum and penis were also well developed, testis were present, cremasteric reflex was also present and at the time of examination, no smegma was found and according to him, the appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. 16. During examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant has either denied the questions or expressed his ignorance. He has not given any suggestion as to why the victim would be deposing against her falsely. Except to state that he has been falsely implicated, nothing has been stated by the appellant. 17. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that when the incident is alleged to have occurred in the month of April, 2019, the appellant could not have been awarded sentence of 20 years RI for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, it would be relevant to note that even before amendment i.e. on 16.08.2019, Section 6 of the POCSO Act provided that the offender could be awarded punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, meaning thereby that at that point of time also, the offender could be awarded punishment of imprisonment for a term of 20 years. Before amendment, the said provision read as under: “6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. - Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may 8 extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.” 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 difÏculty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an 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. 21. 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 accused even relying upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. The view taken by the learned 9 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 was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 22. 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. 23. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.03.25 18:55:01 +0530