1 2025:CGHC:19895-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2244 of 2023 Raghuram Telami S/o Late Shri Budhram Telami, Aged About 49 Years R/o Nelasnar, Police Station - Nelasnar, District - Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Nelasnar, District - Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01 /0 5 /2025 1 The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) questioning the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2023 passed in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 14/2021 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) South Bastar, Dantewada, has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 2 the IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) and sentenced him for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short, RI) for 20 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, to undergo further RI for one year. 2 The appellant/accused is alleged to have committed the offence of rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, that from 09.01.2021 to 11.01.2021, at the house of his relative at Nelsnar under Police Station Nelsnar, District-Bijapur (Chhattisgarh), by forcibly establishing physical relations with the victim who is below 18 years of age by luring her with the promise of marriage and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim more than once or repeatedly and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. 3 The case of prosecution in brief is that the appellant/accused forcefully established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of getting the victim treated, which was complained about by the victim in writing to Police Station, Nelsnar, and the case was investigated by the Police Station Nelsnar by registering an FIR against the accused under section 376 of the IPC and section 4, 6 of the POCSO Act under Crime Number 01/2021. A site map of the incident was prepared and the victim's document relating to date of birth, 8th mark-sheet, Aadhar Card were seized. After obtaining the consent of the victim and her family, the victim was medically examined. The victim's internal vaginal swab, external vaginal swab, pubic hair, nail clippings were seized from the Doctor. The victim's statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and the accused was arrested and his family was informed about his arrest. The 3 accused was also medically examined. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The items seized and preserved from the victim in the case were sent to the Joint Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur through the Superintendent of Police, Bijapur. 4 After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police for the offences under Sections 376 of the IPC and Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada. The said case was tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) South Bastar Dantewada and the case was registered as Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 14/2021. 5 The learned trial Judge framed charges on 22.03.2021 charging the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act to which the accused/appellant denied and prayed for trial. 6 The prosecution, in support of its case and to bring home the offence, has examined as many as 12 witnesses namely the victim (PW-1), victim’s brother (PW-2), victim’s sister-in-law (PW-3), victim’s sister (PW-4), victim’s brother-in-law (PW-5), victim’s elder sister (PW-5), Brijmohan Tamo (PW-7), Smt. Asha Shyamal (PW-8), Shashikant Yadav (PW-9), Madhavrao Reddy (PW-10), Dr. Sandeep Kumar Kashyap (PW- 11) and Dr. Deepika Sinha (PW-12) and exhibited as many as 27 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. In support of his case, he got the statement of the victim exhibited as Exhibit D/1. 4 8 The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 9 Ms. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant accused submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no cogent evidence to connect the appellant with the offence in question. Even the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor on the date of incident. There has been delay in lodging the FIR by the victim for which no explanation has been offered. The victim was well aware of the fact that the appellant was a married person. There is no eye witness to the incident and except the victim, none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the version of the victim. The FSL report as well as the MLC does not support the prosecution case. There are many omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 10 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent submits that the appellant has committed a heinous crime of rape against a minor girl. The deposition made by the victim is clear and unambiguous. The age of the victim has been duly proved by documentary evidence and the conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on cogent and sound reasons and the same does not warrant any 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. 5 12 In the case in hand, firstly a written complaint (Exhibit P/1) was made by the victim herself on 15.01.2021 to the Station House OfÏcer, Police Station, Nelsnar, on the basis of which the FIR was made registered on the same day at 19:30 hours. It was alleged in the complaint that she was a resident of village Puran Tarai, Batinama Tahsil, Geedam, Dantewada and was a student of Class 10th. She was being treated by the appellant. On the pretext of treating her, the appellant committed rape upon her on 09.01.2021 in a house of his relative. On 09.01.2021 which was Sunday, when she alone came to the appellant for her treatment and as night had fallen, the appellant asked her to stay in his house where he introduced the victim to other family members to be her second wife upon which the victim objected and stated that she had came there merely for her treatment. In the night, she forcefully committed rape upon her and stated that he would keep her as his wife and on that night, he committed rape thrice. Next day, he asked the victim that she should not tell about the incident to anyone. He forcefully put sindoor on her forehead and informed his relatives that he had married the victim. Thereafter, on 12.01.2021, the appellant left the victim to her house and on the next day i.e. on 13.01.2021, she informed the incident to her sister, sister-in-law and brother and thereafter, they came to lodge the complaint. 13 In her deposition before the learned trial Court, the victim (PW-1) has stated in her examination-in-chief that since the year 2019 her health was bad and she used to feel weak, suffer from tremors and dizziness. The appellant used to do the work of treating patients by exorcism. Her elder sister used to get treatment from the appellant on whose advice she went to the accused for treatment. She had gone to the accused in the month of October for treatment where she was asked to come next month. Then she again went to the appellant along with her sister for 6 treatment but the appellant had said that he would not be able to choose the medicine at that time, then they came back. The victim further stated that she went alone to the accused for treatment, where she met the accused and his wife, who told her that the time for prayer was over and the medicine would be prepared next morning, on which she was about to return back to her house, when the appellant and his wife told her that if she had come for medicine, then she may stay there overnight. It was a market day, at that time the appellant and his wife were going to the market, the appellant’s wife asked the victim also to visit the market, on which the victim refused to go to the market. The wife of the appellant took her inside the house, dressed her and got her ready. The victim was not willing to go but on the repeated insistence of the wife of the accused, she got ready to go to the market. Instead of going to the market herself, the wife of the appellant sent her to the market with the accused. The appellant did not purchase any vegetables in the market and it was already night, then the appellant told her that there was a meeting in the neighborhood so they would go after going home and he went with her to his relative's house, there also the victim asked the appellant to drop her then the appellant said that he would just have dinner and then go back. The victim has also deposed that the appellant had told her that he would go to his relative's house and sleep there at night, so the woman of that house had arranged a bed in a room. The victim was repeatedly trying to go, but the appellant stopped her. He did not let her go and later took her to his room where the appellant forcefully raped her at night. While raping her, the appellant said that he would keep her as his wife and had made physical relations with her three times at night. The victim further deposed that before going back home the next morning the appellant had explained to her that on going back she should not tell his wife about the 7 rape but that the physical relationship was consensual. When the appellant went back to his house, his wife beat him up asking him where he had gone with the girl and that he had not returned the whole night. On the same night, her health was very bad, then the wife of the appellant took her to a room saying that they will sleep together, where the victim slept on the floor due to ill health. The wife of the appellant took the appellant to that room. When she came into the room, the victim woke up at that time and saw that the appellant and his wife were holding her hands and legs, then the victim ran away from there. The appellant and his wife chased her, then she fell in a pit in the field, from there both the appellant and his wife caught her and brought her back home and locked her in a room. The victim further stated in her examination-in-chief that she was made to sit for the puja next day saying that he will give her medicine after the puja and the appellant applied sindoor on her. That day also, she tried to escape but the appellant and his wife did not let her escape and kept her locked in a room. That day also the appellant raped her forcefully at night. She tried to resist a lot but was even beaten up but the appellant who did not listen to her. The next day the appellant had to go somewhere and then he left the victim at her home. After this the victim informed about this incident by calling on number 1098. 14 The brother of the victim (PW-2), brother-in-law (Jija) of the victim (PW- 5), Brijmohan Tamo (PW-7) who is also a resident of the same village, have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. The sister- in-law (Bhabhi) of the victim (PW-3) has deposed that she was informed by the victim that she was forcefully raped by the appellant and the appellant had dropped the victim to their house. Similar deposition has been made by the sister of the victim (PW-04). The elder sister of the 8 victim (PW-6) has deposed that the victim had gone for treatment alone to the appellant where the appellant had slapped the victim. 15 Dr. Deepak Sinha (PW-12) is the Doctor who had conducted the MLC of the victim and vide his report (Exhibit P/15) he found that the hymen of the victim was not intact and that she was informed by the victim that she was raped four times by some person, though he did not found any external or internal injuries. 16 Dr. Sandeep Kumar Kashyap (PPW-11) is the Doctor who had examined the appellant and on examination, vide his report (Exhibit P/20) he found that the appellant was hail and hearty, his secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed and there was nothing to suggest that the appellant was not capable of performing sexual intercourse meaning thereby that he was fully capable of performing sexual intercourse. 17 The FSL report (Exhibit P/24) which is in relation to the internal vaginal swab slide, vaginel swab slide, pubic hare, nail scrapping, all have been found to be negative. Even in the MLC of the victim (Exhibit P/15), the Doctor has not found any injuries over the body of the victim, however, the hymen was found to be not intact which goes to suggest that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 has not given any explanation as to why the victim would falsely implicate him in such an offence. 18 So far as the age of the victim is concerned, the police had seized the Class 5th, 8th mark-sheet, Aadhar Card and Admission/Discharge register. M.R.Reddy, Principal (PW-10) has clearly deposed that in the Admission/Discharge register, the name of the victim was recorded at 9 serial No. 738 where her date of birth was recorded as 18.06.2024 and she was admitted in Class 6th on 07.07.20125 and after passing class 12th, she was given transfer certificate on 30.05.2022. In the documents seized by the police, the date of birth is mentioned as 18.06.2004 and there is no reason to disbelieve the said date of birth. Since the date of birth of the victim is 18.06.2004 and the date of incident is said to be 09.01.2021 and as such, on the date of incident, she was minor aged about 16 years 6 months and 21 days and as such, she was a child as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act. 19 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. 20 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. 21 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 10 statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. 22 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 appellant even relying upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. 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 we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 23 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. 24 Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 25 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. 26 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 11 Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 27 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/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.05.10 11:00:11 +0530