1 2025:CGHC:31500-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1208 of 2021 Bhuneshwar Nishad S/o Baishakhu Ram Nishad, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village-Padmavatipur, Police Station-Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Pulgaon, District-Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 1358 of 2021 Trilochan Janghel @ Tillu S/o Sunder Lal Janghel Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Silpatti, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant- Bhuneshwar Nishad For Appellant- Trilochan Janghel @ Tillu : Mr.Shrawan Kumar Chandel, Advocate in CRA No.1208/2021 Mr.Veer Verma, Advocate in CRA No.1358/2021 For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.10 10:30:40 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 9/7/2025 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fourth F.T.C., Durg in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No.27/2018, they were clubbed & heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant-Bhuneshwar Nishad has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1208/2021 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fourth F.T.C., Durg in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No.27/2018, by which he has been convicted for offence under Sections 366 and 376/109 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 1 month and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 1 month. 3. 3. Appellant-Trilochan Janghel @ Tillu has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1358/2021 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fourth F.T.C., Durg in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No.27/2018, by which he has been convicted for offence under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC and 3 sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 1 month and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 1 month. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim (PW-1) lives with her parents in village Ragra and appellant Bhuneshwar Nishad is the victim’s maternal uncle (mama). On 20.04.2018, the victim’s elder mother's son was getting married. On the said date, the victim (PW-1) went with her father to Kothani village in marriage procession of her elder mother's son and after having food, when the girls who had come in marriage procession were asked to go back to village Silpatti, the victim (PW-1) came with other girls to the vehicle going to village Silpatti. Then her maternal uncle Bhuneshwar Nishad said that niece, you should not go by this vehicle, they will go by another vehicle, then she stopped. After some time, appellant Bhuneshwar Nishad said, “come let’s go for a walk niece.” On her saying this, he made the victim (PW-1) sit in a white Scorpio No.CG 08 K 2125, which was being driven by appellant Trilochan Janghel, and drove towards Durg. He crossed a railway gate, where he fed her ice-cream and mixed some intoxicating substance in mango juice and made her drink it, due to which the victim (PW-1) started feeling dizzy. Then from there they took her to some other place, where appellant Trilochan Janghel abused the victim (PW-1), threatened to kill her, took off her lower garments against her will and raped her forcefully by 4 intimidating her. At that time, appellant Bhuneshwar Nishad was standing outside the vehicle and watching and kept supporting appellant Trilochan in this act. Thereafter the victim (PW-1) suddenly opened the door of the car and ran to the road, stopped a bus and sat in it and came to the police station. 5. Thereafter, on the written complaint (Ex.P-1) made by the victim (PW-1) at 23:50 P.M. on the same day at Police Station Durg, Sub Inspector Rama Koshti recorded FIR No.0/2018 vide Ex.P-2. Thereafter, Assistant Sub Inspector Rajendra Deshmukh (PW-7) at Police Station Pulgaon recorded FIR No. 141/2018 vide Ex.P- 14. Consent for medical examination was obtained from the victim vide Ex.P-3. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-4. Patwari also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-5. One ladies underwear stains with sperm, full shirt and ladies jeans were seized vide Ex.P-6. Statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg vide Ex.P-7. Statement of mother of the victim was recorded vide Ex.P-9. Statement of father of the victim was recorded vide Ex.P-10. Appellant Trilochan Janghel was sent for medical examination who was examined by Dr.B.L.Dewangan (PW-6) vide Ex.P-11 and found that he is capable to perform sexual intercourse. Underwear of appellant Trilochan Janghel was seized vide Ex.P-15. Dakhil kharij register in which date of birth of the victim has been mentioned as 29.08.2000 was seized vide Ex.P-17. The vehicle used in the 5 crime was seized from appellant Trilochan Janghel vide Ex.P-18. Seat cover stains with sperm was seized from appellant Trilochan Janghel vide Ex.P-19. Appellant Trilochan Janghel was arrested on 22.04.2018 vide arrest memo Ex.P-20. Appellant Bhuneshwar Nishad was arrested on 22.04.2018 vide arrest memo Ex.P-21. MLC of the victim was done by Dr.Ripal Bhatia (PW-9) and found hymen absent, no bleeding, admits 1 finger easily, 2 slides prepared from vagina, packed, sealed and sent to the same for chemical analysis. The doctor has opined that no definite opinion can be given. Underwear (Article A) seized from the victim, slides (Article B) of the victim, underwear (Article C) seized from appellant Trilochan Janghel and seat cover (Article D) seized from appellant Trilochan Janghel were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report, semen stains and human sperm were found in Articles A, B, C and D. 6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge. The accused / appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence. 7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-28. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied guilt. 8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record and relying upon testimony of the 6 victim (PW-1), by the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2021, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, these appeals. 9. Mr.Shrawan Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for appellant- Bhuneshwar Nishad in CRA No.1208/2021 submits that the impugned judgment is perverse, erroneous, contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the appellant has neither committed sexual intercourse with the victim nor there is any allegation in this regard. There was no external or internal injury found over the body of the victim. He also submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there are material contradiction and omission in the case diary statement and court deposition of the prosecution witnesses, which cannot be relied upon and the same cannot be made the basis for conviction of the appellant. As, such, criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellant deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment so far as it relates to the present appellant deserves to be set aside. 10. Mr.Veer Verma, learned counsel for appellant-Trilochan Janghel @ Tillu in CRA No.1358/2021 submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that there was no external or internal injury found over the body of the victim. He further submits that there are contradictions and omissions in the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC and the Court statement, as such, benefit ought to have been given to the appellant. He also 7 submits that looking to the material collected by the prosecution and the conduct of the victim, it is evident that she was consenting and willing party. The statement of the victim (PW-1) would disclose that she is not a “sterling witness” or of a very high quality caliber, whose version should therefore be assailable enough for convict on her sole testimony. Therefore, the finding recorded by learned trial Court is highly erroneous and unsustainable. He contended that the victim herself had gone with appellant Bhuneshwar Nishad voluntarily in the car, therefore, offence under Section 366 of the IPC is not attracted. Medical evidence (Ex.P-26) shows that no any external injury was found over the body of the victim and the doctor has not given any deifnite opinion with regard to recent sexual intercoure. There was no sign of injuries found on the body or the victim or in her private parts. Even it does not disclose the fact as there is no finding of a recent sexual intercourse to establish the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment so far as it relates to the present appellant deserves to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submit that statement of the victim (PW-1) is wholly reliable and trustworthy and her testimony inspires confidence. He further submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has 8 rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, which warrants no interference by this Court. 12. We have heard learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. As regards the complicity of the appellants in crime in question, conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of the victim (PW-1). In para 2 of her evidence, she has stated that on the date of incident i.e., 20.04.2018, she had gone to village Kothani in marriage procession of her elder mother's son Radhev. At around 9 o'clock in the night, she was sitting with the marriage party and the marriage party members for eating food. After eating food, all the girls were told to go back to Silpatti village from the marriage procession. When they went to the vehicle, Bhuneshwar Nishad said that she should not go in the car with the people, he will make her go in another vehicle. Then she stopped at the behest of Bhuneshwar Nishad. The other girls who were with her sat in the car and left for Silpatti village. In para 3 of her evidence, she has stated that then appellant Bhuneshwar Nishad asked her to sit in the Scorpio car and said let's go for a trip. Then she sat in the Scorpio car on the behest of appellant Bhuneshwar Nishad and Trilochan Janghel was driving the car. The appellant was driving the car towards Durg. She was sitting in the seat next to the driver in the car and appellant Bhuneshwar Nishad was sitting in the back seat of the car. The appellants were bringing her 9 towards Durg, then they crossed the railway gate at one place, after that she does not know the name of the place where they stopped the car. Then the appellants fed her mango juice and ice cream due to which she started feeling dizzy. After that the appellants took her to some other place and inside the car appellant Trilochan Janghel forcefully removed her lower clothes, he also took off his pant, she kept protesting but the appellant did not listen and did sexual intercourse with her. Appellant Bhuneshwar was standing outside the vehicle and watching and as soon as Trilochan opened the door of the vehicle and came out, Bhuneshwar tried to get inside the vehicle, then she pushed appellant Bhuneshwar and ran on the road and started running on the road wearing her pant. After going a long distance, a bus came. Then she stopped the bus and sat in the bus and went to the police station with the bus people and lodged a complaint. She gave a written complaint about the incident at the police station. The written complaint made by her regarding the incident is Ex.P-1. After giving her written complaint to the police, the First Information Report was registered, the First Information Report registered by her is Ex. P-2. In para 29 of her cross-examination, she has denied that the police did not examine her. She did not have internal or external injuries. She also denied that appellant Trilochan did not penetrate her with his penis at the time of the incident. She did not faint when the appellants made her cold drink. The witness voluntarily said that she was feeling a little 10 dizzy. She admitted that at the time of the incident she was able to understand what was right and what was wrong. She also admitted that when the appellants committed the crime with her, her hands and legs were not tied. There was no cloth in her mouth to block it. The witness voluntarily said that the appellants were holding her hands with their hands. She screamed and resisted at the time of the incident. When she resisted, she did not bite or scratch the appellants with her teeth or nails. In para 33 of her cross-examination, she admitted that Bhuneshwar has not done anything wrong to her, she voluntarily said that Bhuneshwar was about to rape her, so she ran away from there. 14. The victim in her 164 CrPC statement before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has stated in para 2 that on the way her uncle (mama) and the driver brought alcohol from a liquor shop, ice-cream and maja from the shop. Her uncle (mama) gave her ice-cream to eat and maja to drink. She started feeling dizzy after drinking maja. The appellants took the car to a deserted road, on the way driver stopped the car and started forcing himself on her, her uncle (mama) was standing outside and watching. The driver raped her forcefully. Her uncle (mama) was also trying to force himself on her, at that time, she got down from the car and came to the main road. 15. The Supreme Court in B.C.Deva v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 122, in spite of the fact that no injuries were found on the 11 person of the prosecutrix, yet finding her version to be reliable and trustworthy, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused. The Court observed that: "18. The plea that no marks of injuries were found either on the person of the accused or the person of the prosecutrix, does not lead to any inference that the accused has not committed forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix. Though the report of the gynecologist pertaining to the medical examination of the prosecutrix does not disclose any evidence of sexual intercourse, yet even in the absence of any corroboration of medical evidence, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, which is found to be cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy has to be accepted." 16. When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident. Instead, the emphasis is on allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version. 17. In State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar (2004) 8 SCC 153 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “21. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law 12 that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court on facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration, as understood in the context of an accomplice, would suffice.” 18. 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 13 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 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.” 19.As per statement of the victim (PW-1), on the date of incident i.e., 20.04.2018, she had gone to village Kothani in marriage procession of her elder mother's son Radhev. At around 9 o'clock in the night, she was sitting with the marriage party and the 14 marriage party members for eating food. After eating food, all the girls were told to go back to Silpatti village from the marriage procession. When they went to the vehicle, Bhuneshwar Nishad said that she should not go in the car with the people, he will make her go in another vehicle. Then she stopped at the behest of Bhuneshwar Nishad. The other girls who were with her sat in the car and left for Silpatti village. In para 3 of her evidence, she has stated that then appellant Bhuneshwar Nishad asked her to sit in the Scorpio car and said let's go for a trip. Then she sat in the Scorpio car on the behest of appellant Bhuneshwar Nishad and Trilochan Janghel was driving the car. The appellant was driving the car towards Durg. She was sitting in the seat next to the driver in the car and appellant Bhuneshwar Nishad was sitting in the back seat of the car. The appellants were bringing her towards Durg, then they crossed the railway gate at one place, after that she does not know the name of the place where they stopped the car. Then the appellants fed her mango juice and ice cream due to which she started feeling dizzy. After that the appellants took her to some other place and inside the car appellant Trilochan Janghel forcefully removed her lower clothes, he also took off his pant, she kept protesting but the appellant did not listen and did sexual intercourse with her. Appellant Bhuneshwar was standing outside the vehicle and watching and as soon as Trilochan opened the door of the vehicle and came out, Bhuneshwar tried to get inside the vehicle, then she pushed 15 appellant Bhuneshwar and ran on the road and started running on the road wearing her pant. After going a long distance, a bus came. Then she stopped the bus and sat in the bus and went to the police station with the bus people and lodged a complaint. 20.Considering the statement of the victim (PW-1) who has specifically stated the conduct of the appellants, further considering the FSL report in which semen stains and human sperm were found in Articles A, B, C and D, the material available on record and also considering the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments, we are of the considered opinion that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences as mentioned above. We do not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 21.In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court to the appellants is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed. 22. It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are in jail. They shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 23. Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary 16 information and compliance. Registry is also directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, 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 the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu