2025:CGHC:10154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1203 of 2019 Sonsingh S/o Paklu Aged About 35 Years Caste - Bhathra, R/o Village - Nalpawand, Patelpara, Outpost - Bakawand, Police Station Nagarnar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Nagarnar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri RC Singh Deo, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 28.02.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge FTC, Distrit-Bastar at Jagdalpur, CG, in Special Session Trial- 9 of 2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under with default stipulation: Conviction Sentence Section 363 of the IPC RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 RI for 10 years, and fine of Rs.1,000/- Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.05.01 10:56:11 +0530 Cra 1203 of 2019 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.2.2018 mother of the victim lodged a written report Ex.P2 against the appellant with an allegation that on 23.2.2018 at about 5.00PM when she heard noise of her daughter she rushed towards the house of the appellant, the noise of her daughter was coming from the house of the appellant and when she entered house of the appellant, she saw that appellant was committing rape upon her minor daughter. She intervened and got them separated. The victim/ her minor daughter disclosed about the incident that when she was playing in the courtyard of the appellant along with her friends, appellant came there, sent her friends away from there, dragged her inside the room and tried to commit rape upon her. On the report of mother of the victim, offence under Section 363 and 376 has been registered against the appellant. The victim was sent for her medical examination to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, where she was being medically examined by PW7 Dr.Manisha Goel, who after medical examination gave report Ex.P14. While examining the victim, she noticed Hymen Odemateis and redness and opined that sign of sexual assault is present. Two slides of vaginal swabs of the victim were prepared sealed and handed over to the Police for their chemical examination. The spot map Ex.P2 prepared by the Police. Clothes of the victim have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P6. With respect to age and date of birth of the victim, her 5th class mark- sheet, and Aadhar Card were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P8 and copy of the same are, Ex.P8A and and P8B respectively. School register has also been seized from the Government Higher Secondary School, Cra 1203 of 2019 3 Nalpawand, vide seizure memo Ex.P11, and after retaining its attested true copy Ex.P10C, the original register was returned to the school. Appellant was arrested on 26.02.2018 and he too was sent for medical examination to the Community Health Centre, Bakawand, where he too has been medically examined by PW8 Dr Radheshyam Kanwar, who gave his report Ex.P.16, and found the appellant capable to perform sexual intercourse. Clothes of the victim, her vaginal slides and underwear of the appellant were sent for their chemical examination to the Regional FSL Jagdalpur, from where report Ex.P32 was received. According to the FSL report, semen and sperm were found on the vaginal slides of the victim, and Article B1 and C. However no semen and sperm were found on the other articles. 3. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC, and Statement of the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC have been recorded, and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant for the offence under section 363, 376 of the IPC, and Section 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), before the learned trial court. Learned trial court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 363 and Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. He denied the charge framed against him and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. Statement Under Section 313 of the Cra 1203 of 2019 4 CrPC of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, hence this appeal by the appellant. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in the offence in question. There is no legally admissible documentary evidence with respect to age of the victim that she was minor at the time of incident and there is no external injury on the body of the victim, and no sign or struggle is there. Only to settle their personal score, their parents have made the victim instrumental to implicate the appellant in the false case. Evidence of the victim itself does not inspire confidence and not supported by other evidence, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is erroneous and he is entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the state opposes submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have submitted that but for minor omissions and contradictions the evidence of the prosecution is fully reliable. From the school record, age of the victim Cra 1203 of 2019 5 has been proved that she was minor and even otherwise, her age was not specifically challenged by the defence that the victim was not 10 years of age at the time of incident. The victim has duly supported prosecution case and her evidence does not require to be corroborated with any other evidence, as in the present case, there is no infirmity in her evidence. Immediately report has been lodged he would further submit that mother of the victim is eyewitness to the incident and she got separated them, even if no injury has been found on the body of the victim, looking to the age of the victim, as well as the dominating physical status of the appellant, even if no injuries have been found on her body, that itself does not make the prosecution case doubtful, particularly when the other evidences duly supported case of the prosecution, therefore, there is overwhelming evidence available on record that he committed rape upon the victim, which has rightly been considered by the trial court, while convicting and sentenced him and the same needs no interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. So far as age of the victim is concerned, prosecution has proved age of the victim by producing school register ExP10C, as well as Class 5th mark-sheet Ex.P.8A, and Aadhar Card Ex.P8B. The school register is sought to be proved by PW4, In-charge Headmaster of the School, though he admitted that in the school Register it has not been mentioned that on what basis, the date of birth of the victim was recorded in it, is not mentioned, but there is no suggestion given by the defence that wrong Cra 1203 of 2019 6 date of birth was entered in the school register. Age shown in the school register has duly been corroborated by the other document P8A and P8B which has also in consonance with the evidence of the witnesses that the victim was aged about 10 years at the time alleged incident. From perusal of evidence of the victim PW5, her mother PW1, and her father PW6, it has duly been proved that the victim was about 10 years at the time of incident which has not been specifically challenged in their cross examination, and therefore, this court is not in hesitation to hold that the victim was aged about 10 years on the date of incident, which has rightly been considered by the learned trial court. 10. So far as offence of rape is concerned, victim PW2 has stated in her evidence that she knew the appellant. On the date of incident she was playing with her friends near the house of the appellant. At that time appellant came there, sent her friends away from there to other place, and dragged her inside his room, and committed rape upon her. When she started shouting, her mother came there and got them separated and slapped the appellant twice. She disclosed the entire incident to her mother and then she was being taken to the Police Station, as well as to the hospital for her medical examination. In her cross examination, the allegation levelled by her that appellant has committed rape could not be rebutted by the defence. She remained firm in saying that when she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant, she raised alarm and upon hearing her hues Cra 1203 of 2019 7 and cries, from the house, her mother came there got them separated and thereafter lodged the report. There is nothing on record which makes her evidence doubtful that she was not subjected to sexual assault by the appellant. 11. Mother of the victim PW1, who is the eyewitness to the incident stated in her evidence that on the date of the incident her daughter was playing near the house of the appellant. After some time when she heard her noise she rushed towards the house of the appellant and when she entered the house of the appellant, she saw that appellant committing rape upon her minor daughter, she got them separated and slapped the appellant twice, and took her daughter back to her house. Since she witnessed the entire incident, she lodged the report. Even in her cross-examination, the defence could not brought any material for the reason that she falsely implicated the appellant in the offence, or he has not committed rape upon the victim. The defence also could not brought any material in her cross-examination that she made instrumental her minor daughter to implicate the appellant in false case of rape upon the victim. The house of the appellant is situated just opposite to the house of the victim, therefore, her presence cannot be doubted and also that she could not hear any noise of the victim. 12. The evidence of the victim PW5, as well as her mother PW1, duly supported by the evidence of the doctor PW7, Dr Manisha Goel, who did medical examination of the victim. She found swelling and redness on Cra 1203 of 2019 8 hymen of the victim. She examined her on 24.02.2018 and found that said injury found on the hymen of the victim within 24 hours, which is duly corroborated that date and time of the incident, as well as her medical examination. The act of the appellant has further been corroborated by the FSL report Ex.P32, in which semen and sperm were found on the vaginal slides of the victim, who subjected to rape by the appellant. 13. There is another evidence PW2, who is the friend of the victim. She stated in her evidence that she saw mother of the victim running towards the house of the appellant at the relevant point of time. Though she stated that she did not know about the incident but the fact that mother of the victim running towards the house of the appellant could not be rebutted in her evidence. 14. PW6 father of the victim is witness to the fact that when he returned back from his work and came to his house, his wife informed him about the incident and then he informed the Kotwar of the Village on the next day and lodged the report. 15. From all these evidences, the guilt of the appellant has duly been proved by the prosecution, by the evidence of the victim PW2 herself, her mother PW1, which further supported by the evidence of doctor PW7, who medically examined the victim. I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial court convicting the appellant for the alleged offence. Cra 1203 of 2019 9 16. In the result the appeal filed by the appellant fails and it is hereby dismissed. 17. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 26.2.2018, he shall serve the entire sentence as awarded by the trial court. 18. Record of the trial court be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned along with copy of this judgment for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma