1 2025:CGHC:38693-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2003 of 2022 Ramesh Yadav S/o Shivkumar Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Silpahri, Near School, Police Station Sirgitti, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mrs. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, PL Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 05/08/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01/11/2022 passed in Sessions Trial No. Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 20/2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), whereby the appellant under Section 376 (3) of the IPC and Section ¾ of the RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.06 19:05:44 +0530 2 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, however, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment till natural death along with fine of Rs. 2000/-, with default stipulation under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 2. (a) Case of the prosecution in brief is that On January 27, 2021, the victim’s father (PW-3), filed a written complaint with the police. He stated that earlier that day, his wife, daughter, and other children had gone out to attend Dashgatra (दशगात्र) ceremony in the family of his relatives where at about 6:30 PM his daughter serving food, however, all of a sudden, she went missing. Becoming concerned, he enquired from the friends of victim with regard to her whereabouts and searched nearby places and when he could not found her, he returned home and spoke with his father, who confirmed that the girl had not come back. (b) After an unsuccessful search of the house, he went to a nearby garden where he heard voices coming from a bathroom in a neighbor's yard. As he got closer, he saw his neighbor, Ramesh Yadav (henceforth ‘the appellant’), leaving the bathroom. Using a torch, he looked inside and found his daughter getting dressed. Shortly thereafter, his wife arrived. When questioned by her parents, the victim (PW2) stated that around 7:00 PM, while she was in a storeroom, the appellant came from his home, grabbed her hand, and forcibly dragged her into the bathroom. She alleged that he then removed her slacks and knickers and sexually assaulted her. She also stated that when she tried to raise voice, he gagged her mouth. Following the incident, local residents, 3 including the village Panch and Sarpanch, gathered at the scene. (c) Subsequently, the victim's parents took her to the police station to file a formal complaint. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Police Station Sakri under Crime No. 40/2021, invoking Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The statements of witnesses were recorded, and the accused was arrested. During the investigation, Dakhil Kharij Register (Article-A) was seized. (d) After the investigation was completed and based on the evidence gathered, a charge sheet was filed against the accused. After framing the charges, the same was read over to the appellant, which he denied and claimed to be tried. (e) In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. (f) The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 01/11/2022 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She would submit that the prosecution has failed to provide any independent evidence to corroborate the victim’s account. The alleged "assault" took place in a 4 bathroom, yet there is no mention of physical evidence, e.g. signs of a struggle or forensic material, being collected from the scene. The only "witness" to the incident is the victim's father, who claims that he saw the accused, Ramesh Yadav, exiting from the bathroom. However, he did not witness the alleged assault itself. His testimony is based on his own assumptions. The prosecution's case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The mere fact that the accused was seen leaving the bathroom where the victim was present is not proof of a sexual assault. She would submit that there is no evidence with regard to the fact that the Victim was minor on the date of incident. Even the evidence adduced by other witnesses is not sustainable, as they are hearsay witnesses. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants and would submit that the victim's testimony is consistent from the initial disclosure to her parents, to her statement to the police, and even before the Court. The fact that she disclosed the incident immediately to her parents and the police, with no time for fabrication, is a powerful indicator of truth. He would submit that the FSL report in this case is positive. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The investigating officer, K.S. Rajput (PW-6), testified that he seized the Dakhil Kharij register from the Head Master of Naveen Prathmik Shala. This seizure, documented as Ex.P/16, was confirmed by the 5 Head Master, Gayatri Gupta (PW-7), and an attested copy of the register is presented as Article 'A'. 7. The Head Master, Gayatri Gupta (PW-7), stated that the Dakhil Kharij register was seized from her, as detailed in Ex.P. 16. According to entry number 181 in the register, the victim's date of birth is listed as November 19, 2006, with an admission date of July 1, 2013, for Class 1. This witness also confirmed that Article 'A' is an attested copy of the register. Based on Article 'A', the victim's date of birth is November 19, 2006. The incident occurred on January 27, 2021. Thus, it is evident that on the date of incident the victim was minor. 8. The victim's father, who is also the Complainant in the case (PW-3), stated that he knows the accused, Ramesh Yadav. The incident took place on January 27th, between 6:30 and 7:00 in the evening. He explained that a Dashagatra ceremony was being held at his neighbor Patram Yadav's house, and his entire family was in attendance. While he was eating, his daughter was serving food. After he finished eating, he asked the victim's friends where she was, but they said they did not know. He then began searching for her. After looking in various places, he went home to ask his own father who stated that the girl has not reached the home. When he could not find her there, he continued his search and went to the accused's backyard. He then heard sounds coming from the accused's bathroom, which caused him to stop. At that time, he saw that his neighbor, Ramesh Yadav, leaving the bathroom. Thereafter, using a torch, he looked inside and found his 6 daughter getting dressed. Shortly thereafter, his wife arrived. When questioned, the victim (PW2) stated that while she was in a storeroom, the appellant came from his home, grabbed her hand, and forcibly dragged her into the bathroom and sexually assaulted her. Subsequently, he called the village Panch-Sarpanch and informed about the incident. The victim's father (PW-3) testified that he went to the police station with his daughter to file a written report of the incident (Ex.P/3). This report resulted in the registration of a First Information Report (Ex.P.4). The filing of these documents was confirmed by Omprakash Parihar (PW-11), the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Sakri Police Station. Both the written report and the FIR indicate that the victim's father reported his minor daughter was raped by their neighbor, i.e. the appellant in the bathroom located in the accused's garden. 9. The victim (PW-2) testified that she knows the accused. On the day of the incident, she had gone towards garden to answer the call of nature. The accused, Ramesh Yadav, then appeared, covered her mouth with a towel, and dragged her to his bathroom. Inside, the accused removed his own clothes as well as hers, before forcefully raping her. She further stated that just then, her father arrived looking for her. Upon hearing his voice, the accused quickly put on his clothes and fled. The victim's father then took her home, where she informed her parents about the sexual assault. Following this, they went to the police station 7 to file a report. She confirmed that she consented to a medical examination. During cross-examination, the victim refuted the defense's suggestions that she could not see the perpetrator due to darkness, that the accused had not committed any wrong doing, and that she had returned on her own after answering the nature’s call. She also denied the suggestion that she had not told anyone about the incident. Her testimony establishes that while she was on her way to the bathroom to answer the nature’s call, the accused, Ramesh Yadav, forcibly gagged her mouth with a towel, took her to the bathroom, and raped her. 10. PW1- the mother of the victim, has deposed that she is well acquainted with the accused, Ramesh Yadav. She stated that she has four daughters, of whom the victim is her second daughter. On the date of the incident, she along with her entire family had gone to attend the Dashagatra ceremony of one Patram Yadav, who resided opposite their house. They were assisting in the ceremonial activities, and there was a large gathering for meal. The victim was engaged in serving food at the venue, however, when all of a sudden the victim was not seeing, this witness enquired her whereabout from her niece, who told her that the victim left the premises from front door. On which this witness asked her niece to go home and call the victim and when her niece went to the house she could not found the victim. She also deposed that when the victim could not be located, she became worried and was sitting in the courtyard of her house, weeping. At that time, her 8 husband called out to her and pointed towards the accused, Ramesh Yadav, who is fleeing away from the spot. Thereafter, they went and see that victim was in bathroom. On being enquired, the victim told that the accused dragged her and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, her husband called the village Panch and Sarpanch and lodged the report. In her cross-examination, PW-1 denied the defence suggestion that the victim was present at home when she returned after the Dashagatra ceremony. She further denied the suggestion that the victim did not disclose the incident to her on the same day or that she did not inform anyone else regarding the incident. The testimony of this witness, therefore, supports and corroborates the statement of the victim as also her husband (PW-3). 11. PW13- Dr. Aastha Bharat, has deposed that the victim was brought before her for medical examination by Lady Constable Ritu Rani Rajput (Badge No. 891) of Sakri Police Station. She conducted the medical examination of the victim and prepared the report, which has been exhibited as Ex. P/11A. PW-13 stated that upon examination, she found that the vaginal membrane of the victim was torn in the position corresponding to 6’O clock. During the course of the examination, she also sealed the blue-coloured knicker of the victim and handed it over to the concerned constable for the purpose of chemical analysis. However, she has not given any conclusive or definitive opinion regarding the occurrence of rape on the victim. 9 12. The Forensic Science Laboratory report, which has been exhibited as Ex. P/18, indicates that semen stains and human sperms were detected on three marked items namely -Item A: The vaginal smear slide of the victim, Item B: The knicker of the victim, and Item C: The underwear of the accused. All three items (A, B, and C) tested positive for semen and human spermatozoa. These forensic findings, as per Ex. P/18, lend corroboration to the allegation of rape made by the victim (PW-2). 13. 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 no 10 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 recise, 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.” 14. Also, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, 1990 SCC 550 held as under:- “A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on 11 par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’) similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is own to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances 12 appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the victim's testimony (PW- 2) is consistent and credible. She provided a clear, detailed account of the sexual assault, which she reported to her parents immediately upon being discovered. Her account is strongly corroborated by the testimony of her father (PW-3) and mother (PW-1), who described the victim's distressed state and the immediate disclosure of the assault. The parents' action searching for their daughter, finding her in the appellant's bathroom, and promptly filing a police report further support the victim's narrative. Furthermore, the forensic evidence is highly incriminating. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report (Ex. P/18) found semen stains and human spermatozoa on the victim's vaginal smear, her underwear, and the appellant's underwear. These findings directly corroborate the victim's claim of sexual assault. While the medical doctor (PW-13) did not provide a definitive opinion on rape, her finding of a tear in the victim's vaginal membrane is a significant piece of evidence pointing to non-consensual sexual activity. 16. It has also become almost settled position of law that conviction can be based on the solitary statement of victim, provided same inspires confidence of the Court. In the case at hand, right from the beginning till the end i.e. at the time of lodging of FIR; while making statement 13 before the trial Court, the statement of the prosecutrix remains consistent throughout and the same has duly been corroborated by her parents. This unwavering narrative across all stages of the criminal proceedings adds substantial credibility to her version of events. The consistency in her account reflects not only the reliability of her testimony but also supports the prosecution’s case by reinforcing the absence of material contradictions or embellishments. 17. The law is well settled that the prosecutrix is a Victim of, and not an accomplice in, a sex offence and there is no provision in the Evidence Act requiring corroboration in material particulars of the evidence of the prosecutrix as is in the case of evidence of accomplice. (See: Ganga Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 7SCC 178) 18. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a just and legal conclusion. There is no perversity, illegality, or irregularity in the judgment under challenge. 19. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the conviction as awarded by the trial Court to the appellant is hereby upheld. 20. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 21. It is stated that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the remaining sentence. 14 22. 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. 23. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the Trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri