1 2025:CGHC:57192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 745 of 2021 1 - Nokhram Verma S/o Aajuram Verma Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Nagdha, Chowki Maro, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O昀케cer, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ----Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 25.11.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard 昀椀nally. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.07.2021 (Annexure A/1), passed in Session Trial No. 19/2020 by which the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.16 18:54:12 +0530 2 Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 450 of the IPC R.I. for 5 years with 昀椀ne of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of which, additional R.I. for 1 months 376(2)(L) of the IPC R.I. for 10 years with 昀椀ne of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of which, additional R.I. for 1 month 506 Part-II of IPC R.I. for 2 years with 昀椀ne of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which, addi- tional R.I. for 15 days All the sentence to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that a complaint was 昀椀led by the mother of the victim alleging therein that her elder daughter/victim, aged about 26 years, has been su昀昀ering from congenital paralysis and is mentally retarded since childhood. Due to abdominal pain for the last four to 昀椀ve months, she was admitted for treatment at Mekahara from 19.06.2020 to 28.06.2020. After the medical examination at Mekahara, she was referred and admitted to the Women’s Ward at District Hospital, Pandri. The doctor has informed that his unmarried daughter is 昀椀ve months pregnant. Due to being paralysed, the victim is unable to disclose who has committed the rape that resulted in her pregnancy, as she is unable to speak and is uneducated. Therefore, appropriate legal action may be taken against the unknown person who has committed rape upon my unmarried disabled and mentally retarded daughter and made her pregnant. On the basis of the above written complaint of the informant, a zero FIR was registered under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Pandri, District Raipur, against an unknown person, and preliminary investigation was initiated. 3 Since the incident fell within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, the case was forwarded there for further action. At Police Station Nandghat, Crime No. 191/2020 was registered against an unknown person and investigation was carried out. Upon completion of the entire investigation, a charge-sheet was 昀椀led against the accused before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara under Sections 450, 376(2)(l) and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Bemetara, and subsequently transferred to this Court for proper adjudication. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 21 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 defence witnesses has been examined in his defence. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 09.07.2021 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned trial Court has overlooked that cause of delay is not proved in lodging FIR. The learned trial Court has failed to see that the prosecutrix is clearly accepted para 9 & 10 of her cross examination of deposition that she was studies in 8th class and is aged about 26 years and she is well knowing that she has understand good and bad, good performance eyes, ears, eating food, wearing and her work herself and hence she is not disable and prosecution has nor any produced document for 4 disable in this regard, which is clear doubtful she has made false complaint against the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecution witnesses Sewak Ram Chouhan (P.W. 4) and Padma Sharma Thakur (P.W. 13) have been examined in the learned trial Court and they have clearly stated that the prosecutrix is well educated having lying written of her sign and she can be speak, understood herself and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The Doctor Anchala Mahilange (P.W. 20) has not found that the prosecutrix is mentally weak in the examination. The prosecutrix is good performing in all type of work and hence his mother Punni Bai has gone to any program from her house in any time and to take care of the house dependent upon her daughter prosecutrix alone. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecution has no direct allegation against the present appellant, because mother of the prosecutrix has registered as missing report to the concern police station against unknown person and on the basis of mere suspicion, the appellant have involved as accused in this crime which is not reliable. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecutrix (P.W. 2) has clearly stated and mentioned in para 08 of the conviction order Annexure A-1 that " द☿1नांक 09.07.2020 को द☿7नाखᙍती के द☿<ए का्䵟?पा<क 1ंण⍍डाद☿Cकारी के का्䵟ा?<्䵟 नां1घाट ग्䵟ी थी. जहां तहसी<1ार / का्䵟?पा<न 1ंडाद☿Cकारी के ्䵛ारा चार <ोगों को पहचान के द☿<ए मेरे सम्䵌 खडℼा द☿क्䵟ा ग्䵟ा था, उन चारों में से मैंने आरोपी को छू कर पहचान द☿<्䵟ा था। पहचान की का्䵟?वाही के सम्䵟 आसपास में पुद☿<स मौजू1 नहीं थी और वहां प्䵟ा?प⩍त प्रका7 भी 5 मौजू1 था।" which is clearly shows that the prosecutrix is good performing all type of her work and hence is not any disable and not produced any document in this regard and there is clearly doubtful to registered against as involving appellant in this crime. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned trial Court relied upon the statement made by mother of prosecutrix (P.W. 01) and Than Singh (P.W. 14) which are not reliable and un-trustworthy, The complainant has made complaint against the appellant without any speci昀椀c reason based upon the false and baseless allegation. The appellant has not committed any aforesaid o昀昀ences as alleged by the prosecution against him. She submits that if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, no case is made out against the appellant. As such complainant and her daughter statements are not reliable as there are many contradictions, omissions and development in their statement, which was not considered properly by the learned trial court. From the statements of the victim recorded before the police, Magistrate and before the Court it re昀氀ects that they are not reliable witnesses. Further trial Court also ignored the fact that nothing has been found in the medical report of victim. 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. Thus, the impugned judgment is per se illegal, contrary to the evidence available on record and deserves to be set aside/ quashed. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the act committed by the appellant was 6 extremely disgusting and of serious nature and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the aforesaid o昀昀ences . As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 13. The victim (PW-01), examined before the Court, stated in paragraph 01 of her deposition that the incident had occurred about four months prior, in the month of Phagun of the previous year. She stated that at the time of the incident her mother had gone to another village to attend the marriage ceremony at her sister’s house, and on that day her brother had also gone outside, due to which she was alone at home. She stated that at about 01:00 PM in the afternoon, the accused had forcibly entered the room of her house, pressed her mouth, and committed sexual assault upon her and raped her. The witness further stated in paragraph 03 that due to the threats and fear caused by the accused, she did not disclose the incident to her mother or to any other person on the date of occurrence. In paragraph 04 of her deposition, the witness stated that after four to 昀椀ve months of the incident, when she started experiencing stomach pain, she informed her mother about it. Thereafter, her mother took her to Raipur for medical treatment, where the doctors informed them that she was carrying a four to 昀椀ve months pregnancy. The witness stated that due to fear, she did not disclose the incident to anyone while in Raipur, and after returning home, she informed her mother about the incident. 14. The mother of the prosecutrix P.D. (PW/1) has stated in her court 7 evidence that the victim is her elder daughter, she is handicapped, mentally retarded and paralyzed. The incident happened in the month of Phalgun last year. she had gone to her sister Dhanbai's place for 7- 8 days in the month of Phalgun for a marriage function and her daughter/victim was alone at home. Last year in the month of Ashadh, her daughter/victim had stomach ache, on her telling me, she took her to Mekara Raipur for treatment, then during the medical treatment, the doctor told that the victim is 4-5 months pregnant, on which she got the victim admitted in the women's ward of the district hospital, Pandri." This witness has further alleged in paragraph 3 of her statement that "her daughter, the victim, is handicapped, mentally retarded and paralyzed and taking advantage of this, the accused entered the house of the victim and raped her taking advantage of her loneliness. The victim is not married yet. her daughter became pregnant due to the rape by the accused." 15. Dr. Anand Nirmalkar (PW-5) and Dr. Pooja Lovely (PW-12) and CMHO Dr. Satish Kumar Sharma (PW-8) examined in the court and stated in their deposition that with regard to conducting the DNA examination of the accused, the witness stated that, upon obtaining due permission from the Chief Medical and Health O昀케cer, the blood samples of the accused and the victim (PW-02) were collected and sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for analysis. It was further stated that in this case the blood sample of the accused, the blood sample of the victim, and the foetus and placenta extracted from the victim after medical termination of pregnancy were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for DNA examination. The report is Exhibit P-23. After completing the aforesaid DNA 8 analysis, the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, has opined that Exhibit-B (blood sample of the victim) and Exhibit-C (blood sample of the accused) are the biological parents of Exhibit-A (foetus and placenta). Accordingly, it stands clearly established that the foetus recovered from the womb of the victim, upon DNA comparison with the blood samples of the accused and the victim, con昀椀rms that the victim became pregnant from the accused. 16. After close scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, it is apparent that prosecutrix (PW-2), her mother (PW1) and Doctor in their evidence have stated in categorical terms that at the time of incident, it was the appellant who did such a crime. The evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be completely credible from the above evidences. Nothing favourable to accused/appellant could be elicited in the cross-examination of prosecutrix and other witnesses and, in fact, the prosecutrix stuck to her version that accused/appellant had committed forceful sexual intercourse. Even otherwise, it is settled position of law that conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of prosecutrix. No corroboration as a matter of law needs to be insisted. The prosecutrix being the victim of crime is required to be treated as an injured witness. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573;, the Supreme Court has observed and held 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. Further, the Supreme Court also in the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 34, it is observed that testimony 9 of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should 昀椀nd no di昀케culty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires con昀椀dence and is found to be reliable. 18. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, It is required to be noted that in the present case, the prosecutrix has fully supported the case of the prosecution; she has been consistent right from the very beginning; nothing has been speci昀椀cally pointed out why the sole testimony of the prosecutrix should not be believed. Even after thorough cross-examination, she has stood by what she has stated and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. This Court see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. The conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained. 19. The Court has carefully examined the testimony of the victim (PW- 01), who is a paralysed, mentally retarded, and disabled adult. Despite her disabilities, the victim was able to provide consistent and coherent information regarding the incident. She speci昀椀cally stated the circumstances of the assault, explaining that the accused forcibly entered her house when she was alone and committed rape with her. The victim also indicated, through gestures, how the accused took advantage of her being alone and her physical and mental incapacity. The details provided by the victim regarding the assault were neither vague nor self-contradictory, demonstrating the inherent reliability of 10 her testimony. 20. The complainant, who is the mother of the victim, corroborated the victim’s account in all material aspects. She stated that at the time of the incident she had gone to attend a marriage ceremony, leaving the victim alone at home, and that the victim was unable to speak or disclose the identity of the assailant initially. The mother also stated that the victim became pregnant as a result of the rape, which was later con昀椀rmed during medical treatment. The complainant’s testimony lends substantial support to the victim’s statement and clearly establishes the circumstances under which the crime occurred. 21. The medical evidence, including the doctor’s report and the DNA test results, strongly supports the case of the prosecution. The doctor con昀椀rmed the pregnancy of approximately 4–5 months in the victim, who is unmarried, disabled, and mentally challenged. The DNA analysis, conducted at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, conclusively established that the accused is the biological father of the foetus. The DNA report corroborates both the victim’s and the complainant’s statements and provides incontrovertible scienti昀椀c evidence linking the accused to the commission of the crime. 22. A careful comparison of all the evidence shows that the victim’s account, the mother’s complaint, and the medical and scienti昀椀c evidence are fully consistent and mutually corroborative. The circumstances of the commission of o昀昀ence, the time, the location, and the resultant pregnancy are all supported by independent evidence. There are no contradictions or in昀椀rmities of su昀케cient weight to doubt the veracity of the prosecution case. Therefore the trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and rightly recorded the 11 conviction. No interference is called for. The appeal thus deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 23. The appellant is in jail. He shall undergo the entire jail sentence awarded by the Trial Court. 24. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti