1 2025:CGHC:14552-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1585 of 2024 Bhupendra Kashyap S/o Shatrughan Kashyap Aged About 24 Years (Mentioned In The Impugned Judgement As Shatrughan Kashyap), R/o Gudripara, Narayanpur, P.S. Naryanpur, District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgement on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 26/03/2025 1. The present appeal under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the appellant against impugned judgement of conviction and sentence VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.04 10:45:27 +0530 2 dated 14.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO) Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, in POCSO Case No. 25 of 2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s. 366 of IPC R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 01 month. U/s. 354(A)(2) of IPC R.I. for 03 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 01 month. U/s. 376(3) of IPC R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. U/s. 67-B of IT Act R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 01 month. U/s. 4(2) of POCSO Act R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 01 month. All the sentences are directed to be run concurrently 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.03.2021, the mother of the victim/PW-2 lodged a written complaint/exhibit P-2 to the police with the allegation that during the pray meet at Church, they introduced with the appellant and the appellant used to come to her house. On 20.03.2021, the teacher of the school called her and informed that the photograph of her daughter is viral in mobile phone and asked about the source of uploading the said photographs, then she had given the mobile number of the appellant and when the appellant was inquired, he raised quarrel with them and when she inquired from her daughter, she disclosed that on 09.10.2019 at the time of her birthday, the 3 appellant took her to his house to celebrate birthday and after threatening her that if she would not sexually favour him, he would get her obscene photograph viral in WhatsApp and Facebook and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, he continued in his act and whenever he met her, he outraged her modesty by touching her private part and threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he will kill her. The incident was disclosed by her daughter on 23.03.2021 and then she lodged the report. Based on the written complaint/exhibit P-2, the FIR/exhibit P-3 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Sections 354-A, 363, 376(3), 506 and 509-B of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 3. The victim was sent for her medical examination to District Hospital, Narayanpur, where she was medically examined by PW-3/Dr. Shivani Singroul and gave her report/exhibit P-10 and P-16. While medically examining the victim, she has not found any external or internal injuries on her body. Hymen was old ruptured and opined that she might have undergone intercourse but no sign of forceful sexual intercourse. Two slides of her vaginal swab were prepared, sealed and handed over to police for its chemical examination. With respect to the age and date of birth of the victim, her birth certificate, Aadhar Card and progress report card of class-4th of the victim have been seized vide seizure memo/exhibit P-4. The police have also seized the school register from R+HC English Medium High School, Banglapara vide seizure memo/exhibit P-14 and after retaining its attested true 4 copy/exhibit P-15C, the original register was returned back to the school. Spot map/exhibit P-5 was prepared by the police. The mobile phone of the mother of the victim has been seized vide seizure memo/exhibit P-8. The mobile phone of the father of the victim has also been seized vide seizure memo/exhibit P-9. The mobile phone of the witness/PW-8 has been seized vide seizure memo/exhibit P-12. The mobile display panchnama of the mobile phone of PW-8 was also prepared in the presence of the witnesses vide exhibit P-13. The mobile display panchnama of the mobile phone of the father of the victim have also been prepared vide exhibit P-26. The mobile call details and customer application form of the mobile number 9302093001 has been obtained by the police. The certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with respect to the mobile number 9424165626 has also been obtained from the service provider company Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, which is exhibit P- 33. The certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with respect to the mobile number 9302093001 has been seized from its service provider company, Reliance Jio Infocom Limited, which is exhibit P-38. The spot map/exhibit P-35 was prepared by the Patwari. The mobile phones seized from the witnesses as well as the appellant were sent for its forensic examination to PHQ Cyber Forensic Lab, Raipur from where report/exhibit P-40 and P-41 were received. The appellant was arrested on 25.03.2021 and on his memorandum statement/exhibit P-18, one mobile set has been seized from him vide seizure memo/exhibit P-6. The appellant was also sent for his medical examination to District Hospital, Narayanpur, where he 5 was medically examined by PW-7/Dr. Suryakant Rangari, who gave his report/exhibit P-11B. After medically examining him, the doctor has opined that he could not detect any abnormality that could suggest that he cannot perform sexual intercourse in the ordinary course of nature. The mobile display panchnama of the mobile set seized from the appellant was also prepared which is exhibit P-19. 4. The vaginal slide of the victim, her public hairs were sent for its chemical examination to Regional FSL Jagdalpur from where report/exhibit P-34 was received and according to the FSL report, no semen or sperm were found in the sent articles. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC and statement of the victim under Section 164 of CRPC have been recorded and after completion of the usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 354-A, 376(3), 506 and 509-B of IPC, Sections 4, 6, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 before the learned trial Court. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 366, 354-A, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 506 and 509-B of IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 67-B and 66-E of Information Technology Act, 2000. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied 6 the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and their evidence cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in the offence in question. There is no legally admissible evidence with respect to age and date of birth of the victim. The school register has not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. The victim is a major girl and she herself entangled with the appellant and made physical relations on her own will without raising any objection. There is no evidence that any obscene photo or video of the victim was uploaded or circulated by the appellant or through his mobile phone. Only on the basis of suspicion, the allegation has been leveled against him. No injuries have been found on the body of the victim and the FSL report is also found negative and therefore, in absence of any sufficient evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted for the alleged offence and he is entitled for acquittal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has 7 submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are sufficient evidence against the appellant to convict him in the offence in question. The age of the victim has been proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence and the school record as well as her birth certificate is available in the case, from which the date of birth of the victim appears to be as 09.10.2006 and she was minor on the date of incident. The nature of allegation against the appellant and the manner in which the victim was subjected to sexual exploitation by the appellant is heinous in nature, and further from the mobile display panchnama, the guilt of the appellant has duly been proved that the victim was sexually exploited by the appellant and the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and has convicted and sentenced him, which needs no interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with utmost circumspections. 11. The first and foremost question arises for the age of the victim, as to whether on the date of incident, the victim was minor or not. 12. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the school register/exhibit P- 15C and birth certificate of the victim, which is seized vide seizure memo/exhibit P-4. Although the birth certificate of the victim has not been formally exhibited, but it is available in the record of the case, and the said birth certificate is issued by the Registrar, Birth and Deaths, Nagar Panchayat, Narayanpur. The school register/exhibit P- 8 15C is sought to be proved by PW-9, who is the administrative officer of the school. He stated in his evidence that the police had seized the school register vide seizure memo/exhibit P-14 and the attested true copy of the school register is exhibit P-15C. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was the custodian of the said school register, but the relevant entries had not been made by him. No other witness has been examined to prove the said school register. The other piece of evidence produced by the prosecution is the birth certificate of the victim, which is seized vide seizure memo/exhibit P-4. From the evidence of the witnesses PW-1/victim, PW-2/mother of the victim and PW-5/maternal uncle of the victim, the police have seized the birth certificate of the victim vide seizure memo/exhibit P-4. Although the said birth certificate has not been formally exhibited, but it is available in the record. From perusal of the birth certificate, it appears that the said birth certificate was issued by the Registrar, Birth and Deaths, Nagar Panchayat, Narayanpur. The said birth certificate is issued in discharge of its official duty by the authorized officer and is admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per the birth certificate, the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 09.10.2006. There is no reason to disbelieve the said birth certificate and the same is admissible and taken into consideration to consider the age of the victim. 13. PW-1/victim has stated that her date of birth is 09.10.2006. Her evidence is recorded on 07.09.2021 and she stated that she is 9 presently aged about 14 years. She was not cross-examined by the defence on the point of her age and date of birth. 14. PW-2, the mother of the victim has stated in her evidence that with respect of the age of the victim, the police has seized her birth certificate, Aadhar card and progress report card of class 4th of the victim vide seizure memo/exhibit P-4 and she is the witness of the seizure. In cross-examination, she stated that at the time of incident, the victim was aged about 13 years. She firmly denied the suggestion given by the defence that the date of birth of the victim was recorded in the school register on assumption and she voluntarily stated that the date of birth of the victim was recorded in the school register on the basis of her birth certificate and she has produced the birth certificate at the time of her admission. In further cross-examination, she stated that she is not the biological mother of the victim and she adopted her from the time when she was in the womb of her mother. Her biological mother was the resident of village Kotpat, Orissa and her parents are her real maternal uncle and aunt. Her real mother has presently died. She further stated that she is having personal knowledge of date of birth of the victim. She completely supported the age and date of birth of the victim on her own knowledge. 15. PW-4, father of the victim has also stated in his evidence that the biological parents of the victim are their real maternal uncle and aunt. The victim was born at Narayanpur Ashram. 10 16. PW-5 is the maternal aunt of the victim, who also proved the seizure of the birth certificate, Aadhar Card and progress report card of class-4th of the victim vide exhibit P-4 and she is the witness thereof. 17. From all these evidence, the date of birth of the victim is found proved by her birth certificate and Aadhar card i.e. 09.10.2024. The birth certificate issued by the Registrar, Birth and Deaths, Nagar Panchayat, Narayanpur is an admissible piece of evidence by which the prosecution is able to prove the age and date of birth of the victim and as per the said document, the victim was found to be aged about 13 years. 18. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of ‘Kishan Dehariya v. State of Chhattisgarh’ judgment dated 06.12.2023, passed in CRA No. 559 of 2022 has held in Para 23 to 25 of its judgment that:- “23. In the case of P. Yuvaprakash (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that Clause (i) of Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 places the date of birth certificate from the school and the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board in the same category (namely (i) above). In the Case of Birad Mal Singhavi (supra), parents or near relatives of Hukumi Chand and Suraj Prakash were not examined, hence, date of birth mentioned in the documents of school records of aforesaid two candidates, were not found to be true. In aforesaid case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that parents or 11 near relatives having special knowledge are the best persons to depose about the date of birth of a person. 24. In the instant case, parents and grand-father of the victim have clearly deposed that on the date of incident/FIR, age of the victim was 15 years, which also get support from school record and other documents. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity holding minor to the victim/prosecutrix, i.e. below the age of 16 years on the date of lodging FIR, recorded by the trial Court. 25. Appellant/accused has not brought any strong fact on record or in the cross-examination of material witnesses of the prosecution to disbelieve aforesaid date of birth of the victim. Therefore, we uphold the finding recorded by the trial Court that on the date of incident, victim was child (minor) i.e. below the age of 16 years.” 19. In the present case also, the appellant has not brought any sufficient material in the cross-examination of the witnesses to disbelieve the said date of birth of the victim and in absence thereof, the date of birth and age as comes in the evidence of witnesses, cannot be disbelieved and the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and hold the victim minor. 20. So far as the offence of rape against the victim is concerned, we again examined the evidence available on record. 12 21. The victim/PW-1 has stated in her evidence that during the pray meet at Church, she introduced with the appellant and he started coming her house and talking through mobile phone. He proposed her that he is loving her and she also reciprocated her proposal. The appellant used to come to her house, in absence of her parents and used to drag her inside the bathroom, kissed her and touched and pressed her private parts. When she was aged about 11-12 years, he called her in his house on the occasion of his birthday and touched her private parts and snapped the photographs. He asked for sexual favour and tried to have physical relations with her. When she denied, he left her and thereafter the appellant started threatening to her that if she will no sexually favour him, he will get her obscene photo viral in Facebook and Instagram and due to fear of blackmailing, she could not protest. In the last year also, the appellant took her to Collector Park, Narayanpur and again touches her private parts and trying to commit rape upon her and she again protested, he left her. The same incident was also occurred in the month of November 2020, when he has taken her to Bijali Dam, where he committed rape upon her. On 19.02.2021, he posted her kissing photo viral in DAV School Group and thereafter, the teacher of the school asked her about the appellant and her mother was also called there and she was informed the incident and then they have lodged the report. In cross-examination, she admitted that the appellant used to visit her house and called her through mobile phone and she too was engaged in conversation with the appellant through mobile phone. She accepted the proposal of the appellant and both of them were liking each other. She further stated 13 that under the threat of the appellant, she had gone with him to Bijali Dam. The appellant has snapped her photographs and used force against her. The appellant has uploaded her photographs in DAV School Group. She further denied that she has not protested at the time, when the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh’ reported in 1996 (2) SCC 384 has held in Para 21 that:- “21. Of late, 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 victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Courts, therefore, shoulder 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 14 prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspirers 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 prosecutrix 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 molestations.” 23. From the evidence of the victim/PW-1 and the manner in which the allegation of rape is leveled, appears to be quite heinous that to with a minor girl, aged about 12-13 years. The victim remained firm in her cross-examination, that in every time, she protested the act of the appellant, but due to fear that the appellant has taken her obscene photographs and he could get it viral, she has not disclosed the incident to her family members. We do not find any discrepancy or infirmity in her evidence, which makes her evidence doubtful. 24. PW-2, the mother of the victim has stated in her evidence that in the year 2021, the school teacher of DAV School, Narayanpur called her and shown the photographs in the school group in mobile phone and then her daughter disclosed about the incident. Her daughter has also disclosed that the appellant has taken her obscene photos and 15 blackmailed her and outraged her modesty on various occasions, tried to commit rape upon her and ultimately at Bijali Dam committed rape upon her, thereafter she lodged the report to the police. In cross- examination, she remained firm in saying that she came to know about the obscene photos of the victim to the school teacher and then the victim disclosed about the entire incident and she lodged report against the appellant. Her evidence is fully supported the evidence of the victim/PW-1. 25. PW-4, the father of the victim has only stated that his wife has informed about the incident that the school teacher has informed her about the obscene photos. 26. PW-6 is the cousin brother of the victim. He also stated that the appellant used to visit the house of the victim and he came to know that the appellant get the kissing photo of the victim viral and then the victim disclosed the about the incident. However, he denied that the mother of the victim has disclosed that the victim was being subjected to rape by the appellant. 27. PW-8 is the teacher of the DAV Public School, Narayanpur, who stated in his evidence that during the COVID Lock-down period, they prepared the school WhatsApp group for the students and he along with Librarian and Principal of the school were admin and online classes of class 8th were taken through the said WhatsApp group. In the month of March 2019, a photo was viral which was the kissing photo of the victim and when he asked the person, who uploaded the 16 said photo, he get himself exited from the group. Thereafter, he called the parents of the victim and informed the same to them. After some time, he also received a message that the said photo was mistakenly uploaded in the group and he disclosed his name as xyz, and when he inquired from the said person xyz, he denied that it is not his mobile number. When the victim was being asked about the photo, she disclosed that it is the photo of appellant. When this witness has declared hostile, he admitted that the mobile display panchnama of his mobile has been prepared. In cross-examination, he admitted that except him and two other teachers/admin and students of class 8th, no other outsider can be the member of the said group. It is upon the admin, who can add or remove the members from the group. From the evidence of this witness, though it appears that the person other than the victim in the photograph could not be identifiable, but it is established that an obscene photo was uploaded in the WhatsApp group in which the photo of the victim is there, which comes in the mobile phone of this witness also and he informed the parents of the victim about the same. 28. PW-12 is the classmate of the victim. Though she has turned hostile, but she stated in her evidence that a kissing photograph of the victim was viral in the WhatsApp group of the school and she too has seen the said photograph, but she could not identify the person with whom the victim was. 17 29. PW-11 the Investigating Officer has stated in her evidence that the mother of the victim has lodged a written complaint at police station Narayanpur and she recorded the FIR/exhibit P-3. She investigated the offence and done the entire process of investigation. On 31.03.2021, she obtained the CDR and CAF of mobile number 9302093001. On 06.05.2021, she also obtained the CDF of the seized mobile phone from the BSNL Jagdalpur, which is exhibit P-33 and also obtained the FSL report, which is exhibit P-34. During her investigation, she could not find the SIM card of mobile number 9424165626, which was of the appellant. During her statement, the victim has stated that the said photo was uploaded by the appellant through his mobile number 9424165626. During the investigation, she also found that the photo which was uploaded in DAV class 8th school group was uploaded through the mobile number 9424165626. In cross-examination, she admitted that when she seized the mobile phone of the appellant, the mobile number of 7587464031 and 9302093001 was there and SIM card of mobile number 9424165626 was not there. The appellant was not the member of the said DAV class 8th or 9th group. She further stated in her cross-examination that she saw the viral photo in the mobile phone of PW-8. The face of the person, other than the victim is not identifiable. The copy of the said photo is exhibit D-1. 30. PW-14/Sanjeev Nema is the Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio Infocom. He stated in his evidence that he issued the CDR and CAF of mobile number 9302093001 and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian 18 Evidence Act. Although, in the cross-examination, he admitted that in the CDR and CAF there is no mention about the photo, but he is the witness, who issued the CDR and CAF of mobile number 9302093001, whereas the said photo is alleged to be uploaded from the mobile number 9424165626. 31. PW-15/Vikram Dhruw, who is the Inspector of Cyber Forensic Lab, Police Headquarters Raipur has stated in his evidence that the mobile phones seized in the Crime No. 38 of 2021 of Police Station Narayanpur were sent for its examination to him and upon its examination, he found that from the article ‘A’ the photograph of the victim was uploaded in WhatsApp group DAV Class 9th 2021-22 from the mobile number 9424165626. In article ‘B’, the photographs of the victim and the appellant was found and his investigation report is exhibit P-40 and the certificate issued by him under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is exhibit P-41. Nothing specific has come in his cross-examination, so that his examination report can be disbelieved. 32. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the victim, who was aged about 13 years on the date of the incident, was subjected to kidnapping, outraging modesty and rape by the appellant and also uploading her obscene photo in school WhatsApp group and there are sufficient evidence available on record against the appellant that he has committed the offence. 19 33. In the matter of ‘Prahlad and Another v. State of Haryana’ 2015(8) SCC 688, in Para 17 and 18 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that:- “17. It has to be borne in mind that an offence of rape is basically an assault on the human rights of a victim. It is an attack on her individuality. It creates an incurable dent in her right and free will and personal sovereignty over the physical frame. Everyone in any civilised society has to show respect for the other individual and no individual has any right to invade on physical frame of another in any manner. It is not only an offence but such an act creates a scar in the marrows of the mind of the victim. Anyone who indulges in a crime of such nature not only does he violate the penal provision of the IPC but also right of equality, right of individual identity and in the ultimate eventuality an important aspect of rule of law which is a constitutional commitment. The Constitution of India, an organic document, confers rights. It does not condescend or confer any allowance or grant. It recognises rights and the rights are strongly entrenched in the constitutional framework, its ethos and philosophy, subject to certain limitation. Dignity of every citizen flows from the fundamental precepts of the equality clause engrafted under Articles 14 and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, for they are the “fon juris” of our Constitution. The said rights are constitutionally secured. 20 18. Therefore, regard being had to the gravity of the offence, reduction of sentence indicating any imaginary special reason would be an anathema to the very concept of rule of law. The perpetrators of the crime must realize that when they indulge in such an offence, the really create a concavity in the dignity and bodily integrity of an individual which is recognized, assured and affirmed by the very essence of Article 21 of the Constitution.” 34. In the matter of ‘Appa Bhai v. State of Gujarat’ 1988 Suppl. SCC 241, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para 13 of its judgment that:- “13. ………..The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the 21 court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy.” 35. The evidence of the victim can be the sole basis for conviction unless there are some reasons for the court to disbelieve her evidence. In the case of ‘State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny’ 2017(2) SCC 51, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para 30 and 31 that:- “30. By no means, it is suggested that whenever such charge of rape is made, where the victim is a child, it has to be treated as a gospel truth and the accused person has to be convicted. We have already discussed above the manner in which testimony of the prosecutrix is to be examined and analysed in order to find out the truth therein and to ensure that deposition of the victim is trustworthy. At the same time, after taking all due precautions which are necessary, when it is found that the prosecution version is worth believing, the case is to be dealt with all sensitivity that is needed in such cases. In such a situation one has to take stock of the realities of life as well. Various studies show that in more than 80% cases of such abuses, perpetrators have acquaintance with the victims who are not strangers. The danger is more within than outside. Most of the time, acquaintance rapes, when the culprit is a family member, are not even reported for various reasons, not difficult to fathom. The strongest among those is 22 the fear of attracting social stigma. Another deterring factor which many times prevent such victims or their families to lodge a complaint is that they find whole process of criminal justice system extremely intimidating coupled with absence of victim protection mechanism. Therefore, time is ripe to bring about significant reforms in the criminal justice system as well. Equally, there is also a dire need to have a survivor centric approach towards victims of sexual violence, particularly, the children, keeping in view the traumatic long lasting effects on such victims. 31. After thorough analysis of all relevant and attendant factors, we are of the opinion that none of the grounds, on which the High Court has cleared the respondent, has any merit. By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher 23 pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance {See Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003) 8 SCC 551}. Notwithstanding this legal position, in the instant case, we even find enough corroborative material as well, which is discussed hereinabove.” 36. For the foregoing reasons and consideration of the evidence available on record and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the alleged offence and there is no reason to defer the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 37. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 14.08.2024. He 24 shall undergo the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. 38. 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. 39. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved