1 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 2025:CGHC:55065-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1978 of 2024 1 - Devkumar Nishad S/o Munnaram Nishad Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Beltukri, P.S.- Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sukhnandan Nishad S/o Bisahu Nishad Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Raherator, Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 470 of 2025 Punit Nishad S/o Teejram Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Beltukari, Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 113 of 2025 1 - Pawan Kumar Khusro S/o Baldev Khusro Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Beltukri, P.S. Bilha, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.11.14 16:58:31 +0530 2 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 2 - Praveen Bargah S/o Rameshwar Bargarh Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Beltukri, P.S. Bilha, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Bilha, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants CRA No.1978/2024 : Mr. G.L. Uike, Advocate For Appellants CRA No.113/2025 : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Appellant CRA No.470/2025 : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 12.11.2025 Since all the appeals arising out of same sessions trial, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment. These criminal appeals filed by the appellants are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04/09/2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Additional Charge FTC, BIlaspur, whereby the appellants/accused have been convicted for the offence and sentenced as under:- 3 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 (घ) of the IPC R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation (for all appellants) Under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC R.I. for 2 years (for Punit Nishad) 1. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 15.07.2021, the victim, aged 18 years and 02 months lodged a written complaint to the Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh that she is a resident of village Beltukri. On 15.07.2021 at 02.00 pm, she was going to her grandmother's house in village Mangala along with her younger sister (PW-15) for a pooja invitation. At around 02.30 pm, she reached near Pusanha Narwa where she met her uncle Naveen, a resident of village Mangala, with whom she was talking. At the same time, Avtar Nishad, Manoj, Pradeep Bargah of the village came and said that she was talking to Naveen and she should talk to them too, otherwise they would inform her parents over the phone and defame her in the village. They started threatening her and after threatening to beat her sister (PW-15) and uncle Naveen, they drove them away. At the same time, accused persons punit, Pawan, Dev Kumar and Sukhnandan Nishad also came there. Punit took her by the hand and dragged her towards the bushes. He threw her on the ground. Pawan Kumar and Dev Kumar together forcibly removed her clothes. When she refused and tried to scream, Punit covered her mouth and said that if she screamed, he would strangle her to 4 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 death. Thereafter, accused Punit committed sexual intercourse with her. Dev Kumar was holding her hand and Pawan was holding her leg. Other accused persons were standing at a distance and watching the incident. When the accused Punit released her after committing forcibly sexual intercourse with her, she somehow managed to escape from the place of incident and ran to Manna's house. Thereafter, all the accused fled from the spot and after reaching home, she told the incident to her mother, sister-in-law and father. Subsequently, FIR was registered against the appellants vide Ex.P-6. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-10. Medical examination of victim was conducted vide Ex.P-1. Statement of victim was recorded. Undergarments of accused Punit and victim was sent to FSL for chemical examination. Appellants were arrested vide Ex.P-25 to 28. After completion of investigation, final report was prepared. 2. The trial court has framed charges against the appellants for the aforementioned offence and the appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 3. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. The statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were also recorded in which they denied the material appearing against them and stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation 5 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, these appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the overall evidence available on record for holding the appellants guilty. He further submits that there is no allegation against the appellants Devkumar and Sukhnandan regarding committing of forcible sexual intercourse by them with the prosecutrix. Learned counsel submits that PW-15, sister of victim and PW-16, uncle of victim, who are present at the initial stage of incident, have not raised any alarm for help and also not informed nearby villagers regarding the incident. Learned counsel submits that the police neglected to record the statements of individuals residing near the crime scene. Statements of victim and other witnesses, including her parents and sister, contradict each other and failed to establish a consistent sequence of events. The inconsistencies and contradictions severely undermine the prosecution case. As such, the criminal appeals deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt the learned trial Court after considering the 6 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Now, the question arises for consideration is whether the appellants/accused committed the sexual intercourse with victim. 8. Victim (PW-10) has stated in her evidence that she knows accused persons. She stated that the incident occurred on July 15, 2021. She was going to her grandmother's village for a Mangala Puja ceremony with her younger sister PW-15. As they arrived near the Pusanha drain at 2:30 p.m., they met her uncle, Naveen PW-16 and started talking with him. Meanwhile, village boys Avtar, Manoj, and Praveen Bargah arrived and told her to talk to them otherwise they would call her parents and inform them. They began threatening her and assaulting her uncle Naveen and her sister too. Meanwhile, the appellants came to the spot. Accused Punit grabbed her hand and dragged her to a bush and threw her on the ground. punit, Pawan, and Devkumar forcibly removed her clothes. When she objected, accused Punit closed her mouth and threatened to kill her. Thereafter, accused Punit committed forcibly intercourse with her. Accused Devkumar hold her hands, and Pawan hold her legs. Accused Praveen and Sukhnandan were watching the incident from a distance. When accused Punit released her after raping, she managed to escape 7 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 from the spot and reached her home. Subsequently, she narrated the whole incident to her family members. Thereafter, she lodged written complaint against the accused persons. 9. PW-15, sister of victim, stated in her evidence that on 15.07.2021, she was going to her grandmother's village with her elder sister/victim to attend Mangala Pujai and when she reached near Pusanwa Narwa, she met her uncle PW-15 with whom the victim/prosecutor started talking, then Pradeep and two other persons of the village came there and told the victim/prosecutor that since she was talking to her uncle, she should talk to them also, otherwise they would call her parents and defame her. They started scaring and threatening them. They started scaring and threatening them. The said witness has further told that accused Pradeep and two other person scared her and her uncle and drove them away from there, then she went a little ahead and hid due to fear and from there she saw that accused punit, Pawan, Devkumar, Sukhnandan also reached near Pusanwa Narwa and accused Punit took her sister by pulling her hand towards the bush and Pawan and Devkumar were also with accused Punit and all the three accused took off the clothes of her sister/victim and raped her forcefully. Accused Pradeep, Sukhnandan and two other person were standing at some distance and watching the incident. The said witness further stated that the accused, Punit, forcibly committed a sexual act with her sister/victim. 8 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 10. Doctor PW-1, who conducted medical examination of victim stated in her evidence that victim had redness present on the labia minora and labia majora. There was slight bleeding from the vagina, and upon two-finger examination, the victim/prosecutrix complained of pain. The anterior wall of the vagina was also found to be torn. She further stated that she prepared vaginal slide of victim and clothes of victim and hand over the same to police. 11. PW-8, mother of victim stated in her evidence that she knows the accused persons. At the time of the incident she was at her mother-in-law's place in Mangala and at about 2.00 pm her daughter/victim along with her younger sister was going to her grandmother's house from village Beltukri to Mangala by bicycle to attend the puja ceremony and at about 3.30 pm her youngest daughter who is about 8 years old called her and told the condition of victim. Then she reached her home in Beltukri at about 4.00 pm and the victim/prosecutrix told her about the whole incident that had happened to her, thereafter she went to Bilha police station with her daughter/victim where she lodged a written report. 12. 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 9 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 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 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 10 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 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.” 13. 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 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 11 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 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 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.” 14. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of above principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that from the statement of victim PW-10 categorically stated that accused Punit, Pawan, and Devkumar forcibly removed her clothes. When she objected, accused Punit threatened to kill her. Accused Devkumar hold her hands, and Pawan hold her legs. Thereafter, accused Punit committed forcibly intercourse with her. Accused Praveen and Sukhnandan were watching the incident from a distance. 15. From the statement of PW-15, sister of victim stated, it is evident that due to fear, she hid herself and saw that accused Punit, 12 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 Pawan, Devkumar, Sukhnandan also reached near Pusanwa Narwa and accused Punit took her sister by pulling her hand towards the bush and Pawan and Devkumar were also with accused Punit and all the three accused took off the clothes of her sister/victim and raped her forcefully. Co-accused persons were standing at some distance and watching the incident. The said witness further stated that the accused, Punit, forcibly committed a sexual act with her sister/victim. The victim firstly was dragged by the appellants towards the bush, thereafter, the appellant Punit forcibly removed the clothes of victim and committed sexual intercourse with her. Other accused persons were watching the incident standing nearby. 16. In the FSL report, vide Ex.P-36, human sperm was found on article A, B and C i.e. vaginal slide, undergarment of victim and undergarment of accused Punit respectively. 17. In the result, taking into consideration the evidence of victim (PW- 10), sister of victim PW-15, medical examination report vide Ex.P- 1 and FSL report vide Ex.P-36, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant-Punit committed forcibly sexual intercourse with the victim by removing her clothes with the help of other co- accused persons in the crime in question. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellants is hereby upheld. 13 CRA Nos.1978/2024, 470/2025 & 113/2025 18. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Appellants are stated to be in jail and they shall serve out the remaining period of jail sentence as awarded to them by the learned trial Court. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing the jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are 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. 19. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sourabh