1 2025:CGHC:40077-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 8 of 2025 Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Domar Singh Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Kaneri, P.S. Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/08/2025 1 The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Atrocities Act) questioning the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2021 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 07/2019 by which the learned Special Sessions Judge {under The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989}, Balod, District Balod, has convicted the appellant for the o=ence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code (for 2 short, the IPC) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life which shall mean remainder of his natural life with @ne of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of @ne, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2 The appellant/accused was charged with the o=ence of raping a mentally challenged woman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the victim) and committing rape on her knowing that she is a member of the Scheduled Caste which is a punishable o=ence under Section 376 (2) (l) of the IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Atrocities Act. 3 The case of prosecution in brief is the 26-year-old victim belongs to scheduled caste community and she is is also su=ering from mental disability. The incident took place on 28.11.2018 at about 06.30 p.m. in front of the Kankalin Temple in village Kaneri, where the appellant took the victim to a thatched house in front of the temple and forcefully raped her. The incident was witnessed by witnesses Sant Kumar Korram (PW- 4) and Hemant Kumar (PW-3) seeing whom the appellant Ded from the scene. The witnesses took the victim to her mother and informed her about the incident and the victim also told her mother about the incident. On the date of incident itself, a written complaint (PW-11) was made by the mother of the victim based upon which the First Information Report (Exhibit P/12) was registered at 9:45 p.m. in Gurur Police Station, based on which Crime No. 248/2018 was registered for the o=ences under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. 4 The police took up the matter for investigation and during the course of investigation, the statement of the victim, her mother and eyewitnesses of the incident was recorded. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. A site map of the crime scene 3 was prepared. The victim and the underwear seized from her were medically examined and the slide prepared from the vaginal discharge was also chemically tested at the FSL. The victim's social status certi@cate was seized. The appellant was arrested and the accused and his underwear were also examined and his swab slide and smegma were obtained for chemical testing. The properties recovered from the hospital were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical testing and the test result was obtained. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet of the registered crime was presented before the learned trial Court. 5 Charges were framed against the appellant for the o=ence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act which was denied by the appellant and prayed for trial. 6 In order to bring home the o=ence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely the victim (PW-1), Smt. Magali Joshi (PW-2), Hemant Kumar (PW-3), Santram Korram (PW-4), Pratima Thakur (PW- 5), Dr. Karun Bameshwar (PW-6), Raju Soni (PW-7), Shobha Yadav (PW-8), J.R.Thakur (PW-9) and Dr. Megha Jha (PW-10) and exhibited as many as 21 exhibits and one article. 7 The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the appellant expressed his ignorance to most of the questions and some of them were denied as well. He stated that he was falsely implicated and that he should be acquitted. 8 The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 4 9 Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and there are omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. All the witnesses are interested witness and as such, the conviction cannot be based upon their testimonies. No external or internal injuries have been found by the Doctor who examined the victim and as such, the commission of o=ence itself is doubtful. No semen or human sperms have been found in the smegma slide of the appellant, underwear of the appellant and swab slide of the appellant. Above all, the mother of the victim who had lodged the written complaint and the FIR, has not been examined which makes the entire prosecution case doubtful. 10 On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the appellant has committed a heinous crime of rape against a girl aged about 26 years, who is mentally challenged. The deposition made by the victim, the eye witnesses (PW- 3) and PW-4) is clear and unambiguous. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on cogent and sound reasons and the same does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12 In the case in hand, @rstly a written complaint (Exhibit P/11) was made by the mother of the victim upon which the FIR (Exhibit P/12) was recorded at 9:45 p.m. on 28.11.2018 and the incident is said to have taken place at about 6:30 p.m. Hence, there is no delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution ought to have examined the mother of the victim, however, she has not been examined before the learned trial Court. However, from 5 perusal of the written complaint made by the mother of the victim, it is clear that the narration of facts is clear and unambiguous that the victim was being raped by the appellant. Two boys of the same village namely Hemant Sahu and Santkumar Thakur (PW-3 and PW-4) brought the victim back to her home and informed the mother of the victim about the incident. When she asked the victim, she also informed that the appellant caught hold her hand and pulled towards a hut near Kankalin temple and committed rape upon her. 13 The victim (PW-1) has deposed that on the date of incident, she had gone to the Kankali Mandir in the evening for sweeping where the appellant caught hold of her and took her to a hut and disrobed her and also took o= his own clothes and made physical relationship. During the said act, two boys of the same village came who took her back to her house and informed about the incident. She further stated that she was examined medically and had lodged the complaint at Balod Police Station. In cross examination, she has speci@cally stated that the o=ence was committed by the appellant only and denied that the witnesses (PW- 3 and PW-4) had committed any o=ence against her. 14 Smt. Mangli Joshi (PW-2) stated that she was acquainted with the victim and belongs to the same village. On the date of incident, the victim had informed her about the incident and at that time, the mother and brother of the victim were also present. She is the witness of seizure of caste certi@cate of the victim. 15 The eye witness namely Hemant Kumar (PW-3) has deposed that on the date of incident, he alongwith Sant Kumar (PW-4) were going on a motor cycle towards Kankalin Mandir. At that time, they saw the appellant had caught hold of the hand of the victim and was going towards the temple, 6 however, they did not paid any heed. However, after 8-10 minutes when they were returning from the same road, they heard crying sound of a girl from a hut. When they went near the hut, they saw both appellant and the victim coming out and when they asked the victim as to what had happened, she narrated the entire story upon which the appellant Ded. He is the witness to the seizure of underwear (Exhibit P/4) of the appellant, arrest memo (Exhibit P/5) and spot map (Exhibit P/6). 16 Santram Korram (PW-4) has stated that when they reached near the hut, they saw both the appellant and the victim in a naked condition and when they made a hue and cry, the appellant Ded away. 17 Dr. Karun Bameshwar (PW-6) is the Medical OIcer, posted at C.H.C.Gurur. He had examined the appellant and gave its report vide Exhibit P/7 in which he had found the appellant capable of performing sexual intercourse. He had not found any smegma on the prepuce, however, he had taken swab from prepuce and sent for chemical analysis. 18 Dr. Medha Jha (PW-10) is the Doctor who had examined the victim. She, in her report (Exhibit P/13A) has found that the secondary sexual character and breast were not well developed. However, no injury was found on the body of the victim. However, there was some white discharge on the vagina and bleeding was also present which was emitting profuse foul smell. Hymen was found to be ruptured. However, she could not give any de@nite opinion regarding intercourse. She had prepared two slides from the vaginal discharge which was sent for FSL examination. 7 19 The seized articles were sent examined at FSL, Raipur, where human sperm and semen stains have been found on the underwear and slides of the victim which clearly indicates commission of o=ence of rape against her. 20 The appellant, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., could not give any explanation as to why the victim would name the appellant or falsely implicate him in the o=ence in question. Though the victim is mentally challenged, but she appears to be fully capable of answering the questions asked and the act done by the appellant against her. 21 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. 22 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. 23 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 @nd no diIculty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires con@dence and is found to be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her 8 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 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 @nding 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. 25 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 @nding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/ convict. 26 Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 27 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. 28 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 9 Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 29 Let a certi@ed copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.12 11:33:29 +0530