1 2025:CGHC:47731-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 34 of 2024 Shekhar Ratre S/o Late Bhulau Ram Ratre, Aged About 26 Years R/o Bansin, P.S. Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.09.2025 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second (POCSO) Fast Track Special Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 75/2019, by MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.19 10:39:23 +0530 2 which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 376(3) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life (Rest of Life), and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 01 month. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.04.2019, the victim lodged a written complaint at the Women’s Police Station stating that, on the same day at about 6:00 p.m., while she had gone to the fields to attend nature’s call, the accused approached her and, expressing his intention by saying “I love you and I will marry you,” forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and thereafter fled from the spot. On returning home, the victim narrated the incident to her mother, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, and father. Based on her written complaint (Ex.P-04), an unnumbered report (Ex.P-05) was recorded at the Women’s Police Station, and thereafter a formal FIR (Ex.P-33) was registered at Police Station Rakhi under Crime No. 116/2019 for the offence under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and investigation commenced. 3. During investigation, a site plan (Ex.P-06) was prepared. To verify the age of the victim, the mutation register (Ex.P-01 “C”) was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-03). For medical examination, consent of the victim and her mother was obtained (Ex.P-07 & Ex.P-13). The victim was medically examined, and her clothes were seized (Ex.P-14 & Ex.P-15). A light orange coloured 3 underwear of the victim was also seized (Ex.P-08). The accused was also medically examined, and his clothes were seized (Ex.P- 16 & Ex.P-17). The statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded (Ex.P-10). The accused was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P-28). Vaginal slides and other sealed samples were seized (Ex.P-32) and were later sent for forensic examination vide Ex.P-25, the receipt thereof being Ex.P-26. The FSL report is Ex.P-27. 4. During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC, and after completing necessary proceedings, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 376(3) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Charges were framed accordingly, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses, including the Headmaster of the prosecutrix’s school (PW-01), the prosecutrix herself (PW-02), her father (PW-03), her aunt (PW-04), her mother (PW-05), Dr. Sudha Samuel (PW-06), Dr. Ganesh Ram Agarwal (PW-07), her sister-in-law (PW-08), Om Prakash Yadav, ASI (PW-09), Asha Vaishnav, SI (PW-10), and R.P. Gautam, SI (PW-11) and relied upon 33 documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-33) 4 6. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. However, no witness was examined in his defence. 7. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are manifestly illegal and unsustainable in law as well as on facts. It is urged that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant and the material prosecution witnesses have made statements before the trial Court which are materially inconsistent and contradictory to their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. during investigation. These glaring inconsistencies go to the root of the matter and render the entire prosecution story unreliable. Learned counsel would further submit that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. In the present case, the evidence led by the prosecution is not only contradictory and inconsistent but also appears to be an outcome of embellishment and afterthoughts, which ought to have been discarded by the trial Court. Further, the medical evidence and FSL report do not support the allegation of rape as alleged by the 5 complainant, and there is no independent witness or corroborative material to substantiate the charges. Despite the absence of clear and cogent evidence, the trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant only on the basis of weak and uncorroborated testimony of the victim, which itself suffers from serious contradictions. No motive has been established by the prosecution for the appellant to commit the alleged offence, and in fact, the circumstances clearly point towards false implication. The trial Court has overlooked the fact that the testimony of the victim was not of such sterling quality as could be the sole basis of conviction and as such, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 376(3) IPC have not been satisfied in the present case. The evidence on record, even if taken at its highest value, does not conclusively establish the guilt of the appellant. In view of the settled law that where two views are possible, the one which favours the accused should be adopted, the appellant deserves to be extended the benefit of doubt. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are fully justified and based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced during trial. It is urged that the testimony of the victim is natural, consistent, and trustworthy, and there is no reason for her to falsely implicate the appellant in such a serious offence. It is a settled proposition of law that the sole testimony of the victim, if found credible and reliable, is sufficient 6 to sustain conviction in a case of sexual assault, and corroboration is not an absolute requirement of law. 10. Learned State Counsel would further contend that minor discrepancies or contradictions in the statements of witnesses cannot be made a ground to discard the entire prosecution case, particularly when the substratum of the prosecution story remains intact. The prosecution witnesses, including the victim and her close relatives, have consistently deposed about the incident and supported the prosecution version, which clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant. Further, the medical evidence, coupled with the prompt lodging of the FIR and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., lends full assurance to the case of the prosecution. The delay, if any, in investigation or minor lapses by the police cannot enure to the benefit of the accused when the core evidence on record clearly proves the charge. The trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment after appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective, and the findings recorded do not call for any interference in appeal. The seriousness of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed further justify the sentence imposed. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 12. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix deserves 7 acceptance and whether the prosecution has established the case of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 13. It is pertinent to observe that the question whether conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault/rape is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in a catena of judgments and has held that the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable can be the sole ground for convicting the accused and that the creditworthy testimony of the victim in cases of such nature deserves acceptance. 14. The next issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the age of the victim on the date of commission of the offence concerned, was below 18 years of age. 15. Regarding the age of the victim, the victim (PW-2) has stated that her date of birth is 08.06.2003 and that she was 15 years and 10 months old at the time of the incident. Her father (PW-3) deposed that her date of birth is 18.06.2003, while her mother (PW-5) stated her birth year as 2003. Thus, the testimony of the victim and her parents corroborates each other regarding her age. Although there is a minor discrepancy of ten days between the date of birth given by the victim and her father, the month and year are consistent, and such minor differences do not materially affect the prosecution’s case. The defence could not bring out any 8 fact in cross-examination to contradict or discredit the statements of the victim or her parents regarding her age. 16. The investigating officer, Om Prakash Yadav (PW-9), deposed that the victim’s mutation register (Ex.P-01’C’) was seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P-03) to verify her date of birth. The Headmaster of the Primary School, Pauta (PW-01), corroborated that the original mutation register (Ex.P-01) and its photocopy (Ex.P-01’C’) were seized and that the victim’s date of birth was recorded therein as 18.06.2003, consistent with the statement of her father. 17. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh vs State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263, whereby it has been determined that the age of the victim in POCSO cases shall be determined as per the provision mentioned in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015 on the basis of Rule 12 (3) of the POCSO Rules, 2007. 18. Sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015 provides that – 94(2)- In case, committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining- 9 (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available, and in the absence thereof. (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (1) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order. 19. Therefore, in the light of the principle propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Jarnail Singh (supra), it is clear that the victim was below 16 years of age (15 years 9 months) at the time of the incident on 14.04.2019. She, therefore, qualifies as a “child” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The provisions of the POCSO Act are fully applicable, and the trial Court rightly proceeded in accordance with the law. 10 20. Now, next question for consideration is whether the appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix / victim girl who was a minor girl less than 18 years of age on the date of incident. 21. In this regard, the victim (PW-01) has deposed that the incident took place on 14th April, on that day at about 06:00 in the evening she had gone alone to the field to defecate, the accused was hiding in the field, the accused came from behind and said that he loves her and will marry her, after that the accused pressed her mouth and inserted his penis into her urine place and forcibly did wrong things with her. The victim further stated regarding the facts of the incident that she hit the accused with the toilet box and ran away to her home, after reaching home she told her mother about the incident, then her mother told her father, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle about the incident, after that they all went to Rakhi police station and lodged a written complaint against the accused under Ex. P.-04, on the basis of which First Information Report (Ex.P-5) was registered, after that the police got her private parts examined after taking her consent as per Ex. P.-07 and got her statement recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur as per Ex. P.-10. 22. The victim's mother (PW-5) corroborated the victim’s statement, testifying that her daughter returned home crying, narrated the incident, and that the accused had expressed a desire to marry the victim. She further stated that they visited Kamala Ratre’s 11 house and were turned away, after which they went to the Women’s Police Station. Cross-examination did not elicit any facts contradicting her testimony. 23. Victim’s Father (PW-03) stated that upon returning from work, he was informed by his wife that the accused had forcibly committed the assault. He confirmed that the incident occurred on 14.04.2019 at 06:00 pm and that the family promptly went to the police station to lodge a report. Cross-examination did not yield any facts materially adverse to the prosecution. 24. Victim’s Aunt (PW-04) corroborated the incident by stating that upon hearing the victim crying, she visited the victim’s house, where the victim narrated the assault. She confirmed attempts to seek local intervention from the Sarpanch, which were unsuccessful. Cross-examination confirmed that she was reporting the facts as told by the victim and not influenced by the victim’s family. 25. Victim’s Sister-in-law (PW-08) confirmed that the victim returned home in distress and narrated the assault, and that the family then proceeded to the police station. Cross-examination did not challenge the essential facts. 26. Analysis of all these witnesses consistently describe the victim returning home immediately after the assault, informing family members, and the family taking prompt action to report the matter to the police. Although minor variations exist between their 12 statements in court and their statements recorded during investigation, these are not of a material nature and do not affect the reliability of their testimony. The defense’s contentions regarding possible false reporting or absence of the accused in the village have been effectively refuted during cross-examination, and no evidence was produced to substantiate those claims. The consistency in the material facts across multiple witnesses establishes the credibility of the victim’s account beyond reasonable doubt. 27. The defense also argued that the testimony of the victim's father (PW-3), the victim's aunt (PW-4), the victim's mother (PW-5), and the victim's sister-in-law (PW-8), all of whom are family members and interested witnesses, contains significant contradictions and significant discrepancies regarding material facts, making their statements unreliable. 28. If a witness in the case is a relative, his evidence should not be disbelieved merely because he is a relative of the deceased, rather the evidence should be closely observed. On this point, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of A.P.1 has stated that - 16. Having gone through the deposition of the relevant witnesses eyewitnesses/injured eyewitnesses, we are of the opinion that there are no major/material contradictions in the deposition of the eyewitnesses and injured eyewitnesses. All are consistent insofar as 1 (2022) 5 SCC 791 13 Accused 1 to 3 are concerned. As observed hereinabove, PW 6 has identified Accused 1 to 3. The High Court has observed that PW 1, PW 3 & PW 5 were planted witnesses merely on the ground that they were all interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased. Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in discarding the deposition/evidence of PW 1, PW 3, PW 5 & PW 6 and even PW 7. 29. Thus, the evidence of a prosecution witness should not be disbelieved only on the ground that they are related to each other and if there is a minor contradiction between the witnesses, then the entire evidence cannot be disbelieved on that basis. 30. While the aforementioned witnesses, the victim's mother, father, aunt, and sister-in-law, are family members and interested witnesses, there are no contradictions or discrepancies in their statements that would cast doubt on the prosecution's case. According to the prosecution's version, the incident occurred on 14.04.2019, at approximately 6:00 p.m., and the report was filed at 8:30 p.m. on the same date, i.e., immediately after the incident. Therefore, the statements of these witnesses are written statements made immediately after the incident. The complaint is also well supported by Ex.P.-04 and unnumbered First Information Report Ex.P.-05. 14 31. Assistant Sub-Inspector Om Prakash Yadav (PW-9) stated in his examination that he visited the scene of the incident and prepared a site map according to Ex.P-6 at the victim's location. The victim (PW-2) supports the fact that the police prepared a site map of the incident in front of her according to Ex.P-6. The defense did not present any significant facts contradicting these witnesses' statements during their cross-examination. The victim stated that the accused raped her at the same location marked in red ink on the site map (Ex.P-6). Therefore, the above incident location is corroborated by the victim's testimony. Therefore, since the victim's testimony appears to corroborate the above incident location, there is no basis for doubt in the case regarding the above incident location. 32. PW-09 further seized the victim’s underwear as per seizure memo Ex.P-08 and also seized earrings and a plastic box from the incident site as per Ex.P-09. He ensured that the items were properly sealed, labelled, and forwarded for forensic examination. Additionally, he seized the accused’s underwear from constable Jitendra Mishra as per seizure memo Ex.P-20 and sent it for chemical analysis at the State Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Raipur. PW-09 also prepared various applications for recording statements and conducting examinations. These included Ex.P-21 for recording the victim’s statement under Section 161 CrPC, Ex.P-22 for recording her statement at the police station, and Ex.P-23/24 for preparation of the Patwari map of the incident site. 15 He obtained the victim’s consent for medical examination and sample collection under Ex.P-07 and Ex.P-13. 33. In his cross-examination, PW-09 was not contradicted by the defence regarding the seizure procedures, and no evidence was led to suggest tampering or fabrication. His testimony confirmed a continuous and unbroken chain of custody of all seized items, ensuring their integrity from seizure to forensic analysis. 34. Sub-Inspector Asha Vaishnav (PW-10) assisted in the seizure and corroborated the collection of the victim’s underwear (Ex.P-08). She ensured the items were sealed and dispatched for medical examination at the District Hospital, Raipur, and prepared vaginal slides from the victim (Ex.P-32) for chemical testing. PW-10 also assisted in recording statements of the victim and other investigative documentation. 35. PW-10’s cross-examination did not elicit any contradictions regarding the authenticity or handling of the seized items. Her testimony confirmed that all procedures were conducted legally, and the evidence collected was preserved in accordance with statutory requirements. 36. Now coming to the forensic and scientific evidence adduced, the forensic examination of the seized materials was conducted at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. The items sent for analysis included the victim’s underwear (Ex.P-08), the vaginal 16 slides prepared from the victim (Ex.P-32), and the accused’s underwear (Ex.P-20). 37. The forensic report, Ex.P-27, confirmed the presence of human semen and spermatozoa on the victim’s underwear (Exhibit “B”), the vaginal slides (Exhibit “A”), and the accused’s underwear (Exhibit “C”). The FSL report explicitly indicated that the biological material found on the victim’s and accused’s garments was consistent with human origin, and no contamination of samples was reported. 38. The forensic results established a direct link between the accused and the sexual assault on the victim. The presence of semen on the victim’s underwear and vaginal slides corroborates her testimony regarding forcible sexual intercourse, while the presence of sperm on the accused’s underwear provides a critical piece of evidence connecting him to the crime. 39. The forensic findings directly corroborate the testimony of the victim (PW-02) and other witnesses (PW-03, PW-04, PW-05, PW- 08) regarding the occurrence of sexual assault. The chemical analysis of the biological samples not only confirms penetration but also supports the accused’s involvement in the commission of the offense. 40. In view of the above, the FSL evidence, in combination with the seizure and medical evidence, provides a strong and reliable 17 scientific basis for concluding that the accused had sexual intercourse with the minor victim, as alleged. 41. Now coming the medical evidence adduced, the medical examination of the victim was conducted by Dr. Sudha Samuel (PW-06) on 14.04.2019, the very day of the incident. The examination was intended to ascertain the physical and sexual condition of the victim, and to collect evidence for scientific analysis. 42. Dr. Sudha Samuel observed that the victim was mentally and physically normal. Her secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed. The external examination revealed no visible injuries on the body, and the victim reported no pain or discomfort at the time of examination. The absence of external injuries, particularly in the context of an assault allegedly committed in a field, was explained by the witness as possibly due to the victim being unable to resist the assault because of fear or terror. 43. Examination of the victim’s genitalia revealed that the external genital parts were healthy and normal, but the hymen was found to be torn. The internal genitalia were also examined, and no injuries, swelling, or discharge were observed. Two vaginal slides were prepared and sealed (Ex.P-32) for further chemical and forensic testing. The medical examination report was submitted as Ex.P-14. 18 44. The medical evidence, particularly the torn hymen, supports the victim’s account of forcible sexual intercourse. Although there were no injuries to the external or internal genitalia, it is well- established that penetration sufficient to constitute rape does not always result in visible injuries, especially when the victim is a minor and the assault occurs under coercion. 45. Dr. Ganesh Ram Agarwal (PW-07) examined the accused to determine his sexual capability. On the basis of the examination (Ex.P-16), he confirmed that the accused was sexually capable. 46. The defense raised an argument regarding the absence of injuries in the medical report and contended that, in such a case, the victim’s version could not be relied upon. However, this argument is not legally tenable because the law recognizes that penetration itself constitutes rape, and physical injury is not a necessary condition. The corroboration by the torn hymen and the forensic findings (Ex.P-27) conclusively establishes sexual intercourse. 47. The medical evidence, therefore, serves two essential purposes: first, it confirms that the victim was subjected to sexual assault, and second, it establishes the sexual capability of the accused to commit the offense. Combined with the FSL report and the consistent testimony of the victim and her family members (PW- 03, PW-04, PW-05, PW-08), the medical evidence forms a robust basis to substantiate the prosecution’s case. 19 48. In conclusion, the medical evidence, together with the scientific evidence from FSL analysis, and the victim’s detailed and consistent testimony, collectively corroborates the occurrence of rape and penetrative sexual assault committed by the accused on the minor victim. 49. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of 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 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 20 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.” 50. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.144 OF 2022), decided on 8.2.2022 has held as under:- “10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects and to achieve what has been provided under Article 15 and 39 of the Constitution to protect children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, the POCSO Act, 2012 has been enacted. Any act of sexual 21 assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act. By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure. Children are precious human resources of our country; they are the country’s future. The hope of tomorrow rests on them. But unfortunately, in our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position. There are different modes of her exploitation, including sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. In our view, exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and the society. Therefore, the children and more particularly the girl child deserve full protection and need greater care and protection whether in the urban or rural areas. As observed and held by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, children need special care and protection and, in such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. In 22 the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, it is observed by this Court that a minor who is subjected to sexual abuse needs to be protected even more than a major victim because a major victim being an adult may still be able to withstand the social ostracization and mental harassment meted out by society, but a minor victim will find it difficult to do so. Most crimes against minor victims are not even reported as very often, the perpetrator of the crime is a member of the family of the victim or a close friend. Therefore, the child needs extra protection. Therefore, no leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law.” 51. 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. 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 that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal 23 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.” 52. On these lines, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivasharanappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 observed as follows: “17. Thus, it is well settled in law that the court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record. Needless to say as a rule of prudence, the court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from other reliable evidence placed on record. The principles that apply for placing reliance on the solitary statement of the witness, namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack of corroboration, apply to a child witness who is competent and whose version is reliable.” 24 53. On the basis of analysis of evidence presented by the prosecution, it is evident that date of birth of the victim is 18.06.2003 and on the date of incident i.e. 14.04.2019, it is clear that the age of the victim was below 16 years of age (15 years 9 months) at the time of the incident . It is proved that the victim is a girl child and that the accused, knowing that the victim was a girl child below 16 years of age at the time of the incident, committed the crime of rape, forcible penetration, sexual assault and rape on the girl/victim below 16 years of age. Thus, the said crime of rape, penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl below 16 years of age by the accused falls under the category of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. 54. On a careful examination of the evidence on record, it is manifest that the victim (PW-02) has provided a coherent and consistent account of the incident dated 14.04.2019. She stated that she had gone to the field for defecation at around 6:00 pm, when the accused approached her from behind, forcibly covered her mouth, and committed sexual assault. Her narration in the main examination is corroborated by her immediate reporting of the incident to her mother (PW-05), father (PW-03), aunt (PW-04), and sister-in-law (PW-08). The written complaint lodged by the victim (Ex.P.-04), and the subsequent First Information Report (Ex.P.-05), along with her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Ex.P.-10), consistently reflect the details provided. No 25 significant contradictions or discrepancies were elicited during cross-examination to undermine the reliability of the testimony. 55. The seizure and investigation process conducted by the police further strengthen the prosecution case. Witnesses Assistant Sub- Inspector Om Prakash Yadav (PW-09) and Sub-Inspector Asha Vaishnav (PW-10) conducted seizure of the victim’s underwear (Ex.P.-08), the vaginal slide (Ex.P.-32), and the accused’s underwear (Ex.P.-20) in a proper manner, maintaining the chain of custody. The site map (Ex.P.-06) prepared during investigation corresponds with the victim’s account of the location of the incident. The testimony of these witnesses has not been challenged credibly by the defence, and there is no evidence to suggest any fabrication or malpractices in the investigative process. 56. Scientific analysis of the seized materials by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, as reflected in Ex.P.-27, revealed the presence of human sperm and semen stains on the victim’s underwear, vaginal slide, and the accused’s underwear. These findings are fully consistent with the victim’s account of penetrative sexual assault and significantly corroborate the testimonial evidence. The FSL report, therefore, provides independent and objective confirmation of the commission of sexual intercourse by the accused. 57. The medical examination conducted by Dr. Sudha Samuel (PW- 06) on 14.04.2019 confirmed that the victim was mentally and 26 physically normal and that her secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed. Although no external injuries were observed, the hymen was found to be torn, indicating sexual penetration. The absence of injuries is explicable by the fact that the victim may not have been able to offer physical resistance due to fear and terror at the hands of the accused. The medical evidence, when read in conjunction with the testimonial and forensic evidence, supports the occurrence of rape and penetrative sexual assault. 58. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the victim was a consenting party is legally untenable, as the victim was a minor below eighteen years of age. As per Section 375 IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, a minor cannot legally give consent to sexual activity. The argument of consent is therefore wholly refuted. 59. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 60. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 61. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is 27 undergoing the 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 High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 62. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet