1 2025:CGHC:6257-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1804 of 2022 Purandas Manikpuri S/o Shri Pyaredas Manikpuri, aged about 55 years R/o Village Muchel Police Choukey Chilphi, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Civil and Revenue District Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lormi District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : 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 04.02.2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) questioning the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Special Judge (F.T.S.C.) POCSO Act, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 16/2020, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner : RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.07 19:07:55 +0530 2 CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 452 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 1 month U/s 6 of POCSO Act Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 2 months 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 06.02.2020, the uncle of the victim (PW-3) lodged a written report (Ex.P-8) at the Outpost Chilfi, Police Station Lormi to the effect that on the incident date 05.02.2020 at around 6:00 pm, his minor niece/victim was alone in her house, cooking food. Then the Kotwar of his village, accused Purandas Manikpuri, came to his brother's house after drinking alcohol and asked his niece/victim to turn on the TV and when his niece was returning after turning on the TV, then the accused caught the girl, pressed her mouth with his hand and threw her on the ground and was raping her after removing her clothes, then his nephew (PW-4) saw the accused raping the victim and asked why he was doing wrong with his sister, then the accused said that he may do whatever he wants and ran away from the house after wearing his clothes. Based on the written report (Ex.P-8) of the victim’s uncle, FIR (Ex.P-9) was registered under Crime No. 0/2020 against the accused at Outpost Chilfi, Police Station Lormi under Sections 452, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC’) and Sections 5, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’), and the case was transferred to 3 Police Station, Lormi, wherein it was re-numbered as Crime No. 53/2020 and the investigation was taken up. 3. 3. During the investigation, after taking consent from victim’s uncle (PW-3) vide Ex.P-6, the victim was sent to Community Health Centre, Lormi for her medical examination vide Ex.P-21, wherein she was medically examined by lady doctor, Dr. Pushplata Sidar (PW-11) and report was given vide Ex.P-30, whereby it has been opined that the victim was sexually exploited, however, no opinion was given for recent intercourse and two vaginal slides of the swab of victim was also prepared. Undergarment of the victim and two vaginal slides prepared by Dr. Pushplata Sidar (PW-11) were seized vide Ex.P-15. The statement of the victim was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. vide Ex.P-7. The spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-12. Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-13 Underwear and lungi of the accused were recovered and sent for medical examination to Block Medical Officer, Lormi vide Ex.P-27, who has medically examined said articles vide Ex.P-20 and marked the white spots found over it with black marker and the same were seized vide Ex.P-16. Seized articles were sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur for chemical examination vide Ex.P-28 and receipt of the same was obtained vide Ex.P-29. In order to ascertain the age of the victim, a dakhil kharij register was seized vide Ex.P-3 from Durgesh Rajput (PW-1), Headmaster of the Government Primary School, Muchel and after obtaining certified copy of the same vide Ex. P-2C and Ex.P-5, 4 original register was handed over to PW-1 vide Ex.P-4. Xerox copy of the Class-V marksheet (Ex.P14-C) of the victim was seized vide Ex.P-13. The accused was arrested in front of the witnesses vide Ex.P-24 and information of his arrest was given to his family member vide Ex.P-25. After necessary investigation, the chargesheet was presented for trial before the Court of Special Judge (F.T.S.C.) POCSO Act, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.). 4. On the basis of prosecution documents, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 452, 376 A, B of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and when the charges were read out and explained to him, the accused denied the charges and wanted trial. 5. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. The accused did not give any defense evidence in his defence. 6. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2022 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, 5 against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by them calling in question the impugned judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution and has wrongly convicted the appellant. The prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The statements of the victim are full of conjectures and surmises and are highly unreliable. The age of the victim has not been proved and no ossification test for determining the age has been done which makes the whole case of prosecution doubtful. Hence, the conviction is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the State/respondent submitted that the appellant has committed a heinous crime of rape against minor girl, aged about 11 years 3 months and 24 days and the same has been duly proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6 10. The first question for consideration before this Court would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that on the date of incident, the victims were minor? 11. When a person is charged for the offence punishable under the POCSO Act, or for rape punishable in the Indian Penal Code, the age of the victim is significant and essential ingredient to prove such charge and the gravity of the offence gets changed when the child is below 18 years, 12 years and more than 18 years. Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act defines the “child” which means any person below the age of eighteen years. 12. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding principles for determining the age of a child, which read as follows : “22. On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed under Section 68(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as under : “12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.? (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. 7 (2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining – (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating 8 the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub- rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.” 23. Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine the age of the prosecutrix VW- PW6. The manner of determining age conclusively, has been expressed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated option available, would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 9 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion.” 13. In the present case, the prosecution has presented certified copy of dakhil kharij register (Ex.P-2C) and a xerox copy of Class-V marksheet (Ex.P-14C) of the victim, in both the documents, the date of birth of victim is mentioned as 12.10.2008. The defence has not presented any oral or documentary evidence to refuse the said date of birth, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the date of birth of the victim, as 12.10.2008 hence, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held that the date of birth of the victim is 12.10.2008 and her age on the date of incident i.e. 05.02.2020 was 11 years 03 months and 24 days. 10 14. The next question for consideration before us is whether the appellant has committed rape on minor victim ? 15. In this regard, the statement of the victim (PW-2) is of much importance. The victim (PW-2) in her statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC has stated that she study in class 6th in village Muchel. The incident happened on Wednesday evening of 05.02.2020 in the month of February at around 06:00 pm. She was alone in her house, her parents had gone out to earn and his brother had also gone to work. Then the village Kotwar Purandas Manikpuri (the accused) came to her house and asked her to turn on the TV, after that she turned on the TV and went to the kitchen to get food, after that when she came back with food, Purandas Manikpuri pressed her mouth and hands and took off her clothes and her chaddi and forcefully did wrong things (rape) with her. Her brother Rupesh saw the above incident, after that he went to the store room to get a stick and when he did not get the stick, he slapped the Kotwar twice, after that Kotwar Purandas ran away from there. After the above incident, she was in her house and her brother went to tell her younger uncle Ramji. After that her younger uncle came to her house and she told him about the incident, then he asked her aunt Bhaggi to sleep with her and went away. The victim in her Court statement has narrated the same version which she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. In her cross-examination, she has denied all the suggestion given by the defence. 11 16. The brother of the victim (PW-4), who is stated to be an eye- witness of the incident, has stated in his evidence that he know the accused Poorandas. The victim is his younger sister, who is studying in class VIII. The incident took place on 05.02.2020 at around 6:00 pm. At the time of the incident, his sister/victim was alone in the house, he had gone to the field at that time and his father had also gone out to earn money. When he returned home from the field, the accused was doing wrong things (rape) with her younger sister/victim, seeing which he slapped the accused twice, at that time the accused was drunk, after that the accused ran away from the house. He further stated that her sister/victim told that the accused came and asked her to turn on the TV. When the victim turned on the TV and was going towards the kitchen, the accused pressed her mouth and made her fall and was forcibly doing wrong things (rape) with her. Seeing him, the accused ran away from the house. He slapped the accused twice. 17. Thus, the above statements of the victim are also confirmed by the statements of the victim’s bother (PW-4). 18. The uncle of the victim (P.W.-03) has also stated that on the date of the incident, at about 6:00 p.m., his niece/victim was alone in the house, cooking food, when the accused went to her house on the pretext of watching TV and raped his niece forcefully. The incident was witnessed by his nephew. Both the victim and his nephew told him about the incident. After that, he told the villagers about the incident and also informed the victim's father over the 12 phone, because at that time the victim's parents had gone out to earn money. A meeting was held in the village regarding the incident and he, along with his niece/victim and nephew and the village sarpanch and other people, went to the police station Chilfi and lodged a written report of the incident, on the basis of which the First Information Report of the incident was registered. 19. The statements of this witness were supported by another uncle of the victim, PW-05 and Atmaram Sahu, PW-06, and they further stated that the brother of the victim and the victim had told that the accused entered her house and was forcibly raping the victim by gagging her mouth, which her brother saw and slapped the accused, after which he ran away from her house. The statements of the above three witnesses, victim's uncle PW-03, another uncle PW-05 and Atmaram Sahu, PW-06, and the written report Ex.P-8 and First Information Report Ex.P-9 also confirm the above statements of the victim. 20. In the medical examination also, it has been found that the victim has a peeled wound on the outer part of her vagina and there is pain on touching her private part and sexual intercourse has been done with her, which is also confirmed by the statements of Dr. Pushpalata Sidar PW-11 and medical report Ex.P-30. Though there are some contradictions in the statements of the victim and her brother and uncle before the police and the Court, but there is no contradiction in their essential statements. 13 21. In the case of Ganesan v. State, reported in (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. 22. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, reported in (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. 23. In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (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 difficulty 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. 24. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the victim though no definite opinion regarding 14 sexual intercourse has been given by doctor, who has medically examined the victim, but considering the statement given by the victim (PW-2), supported by MLC report, wherein it has stated that her hymen was found to be ruptured, it is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. 25. Thus, it is found proved that the accused entered in the residential house of the victim and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed rape on minor victim. 26. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and as such, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 27. 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. 28. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15 29. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2022. 30. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan /Chandra