1 2025:CGHC:16016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 313 of 2020 1 - Vicky @ Vikas Verma S/o Basant Verma Aged About 27 Years Caste Lodhi, R/o Bajrang Chowk, Ward No. 15, Ghumka, Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chowki Jobi, Police Station Ghumka, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 04/04/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.01.2020, passed in Special Case No. 14/2018 by which the learned Special Judge [SC & 2 ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act] Rajnandgaon (CG),whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 342 of IPC R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of fine, additional RI for 1 month. U/s 376(2) of IPC RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of fine, additional RI for 2 months. U/s 323 of IPC RI for 6 months 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix is an old lady who is residing with her son and grandson and she is by caste Satnami. She also stated that she is beggar and labourer. On 25.06.2018 at about 2:00 pm in the house of the accused which is situated at the back side of the Hospital, committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The concerned police station investigated the matter and arrested the present appellant under aforementioned section and charge sheet was filed. After filing of charge sheet, trial has been initiated against the appellant and after completing the trial found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 342, 323, 376(2) of IPC and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned opening paragraph of this judgment. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 14 witnesses. Statements of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and 3 sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case, because there is previous enmity with the prosecutrix and his family members. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated and considered the documents available on record. Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record placed on record. 9. From perusal of record it transpires that the prosecutrix lives with her son and grandson. She is an old Satnami lady. She is a beggar and her son is a labour. The accused lives in her village. She knows the accused. On 25.06.2018 at around 2:00 pm in the house of accused which is situated behind the hospital in village Ghumka, the accused asked the prosecutrix that his mother is calling her and took her inside his house. The accused then closed the door of his house and committed sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix and threatened to kill her if she will tell about the incident to anyone. 10.PW-9/ prosecutrix in her statement has deposed that she knows the accused present in the Court. She further contended that accused took her with him in his home undressed her and put his private part in her 4 mouth and thereafter committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. Accused has also beaten her with stick (lathi). 11.PW-1/Bhana Bai has deposed that the prosecutrix had told her about the incident next day. She further deposed that prosecutrix had told her that the accused has put his private part in her mouth and has inserted his private parts in the private parts of the prosecutrix. She further deposed that she herself has seen the prosecutrix’s private parts which was bleeding and swollen. 12.PW-2/ Lakshman Singh has deposed in his statement that Chitrarekha Singh is his wife. His wife told him that one lady is crying in the street. When he went to see her he found that the prosecutrix is crying in the street. Accused has committed rape upon her. He further deposed that when he saw the victim her gums were bleeding. PW-6/ Chitrarekha Singh has supported the statement of PW-2. 13.PW-3/ Dayaluram Khunte who is Secretary of Panchayat Office has deposed in his statement that when victim came to the Panchayat Office there was swelling on her face and her gums were bleeding and she was crying. He further deposed that the victim came to Panchayat Office at around 4:00 pm. 14.PW-5/ Mahesh Kumar Patil who is grand son of the victim has deposed that when victim who is her grandmother came back home there was swelling on her face and she told him that the accused has committed rape with her. 15.PW-14/Dr. Ekta Daniel who medically examined the victim on 29.06.2018 gave her report (Ex. P/17) has deposed that in the general examination of victim there was abrasion of 2 x 5 cm over the thoracic vertebra, secondary sexual characters of the victim were developed. 5 16.In the case of Ganesan vs. State, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the victim is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the series of judgments on conviction on the sole evidence of the victim. In paragraphs 10.1 to 10.3, it was observed and held as under: “10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay [Vijay vs. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191], it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98 9. In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 550] this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16) ‘16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a 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 6 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 alive to and 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 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 shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely 7 involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” 17. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of the witnesses, keeping in mind the report of Doctor (Ex.P-14), judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the Special Judge [SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act] Rajnandgaon (C.G.) convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 342, 376(2) and 323 of IPC are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and the prosecutrix is starling witness therefore, findings recorded by the Trial Court is fully based upon clinching evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses of prosecution, therefore it deserves to be and are hereby maintained. 18.Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima