1 2025:CGHC:59660-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 830 of 2022 Jagnarayan Singh S/o Buddhu Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Chhote Kalua, Bodarhiyapara, Police Station Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09/12/2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2022 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 26/2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO) Manendragarh, District Koria, by which the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: Conviction under Section Rigorous Imprisonment Fine Default Sentence 450 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) 5 years Rs. 500/- 1 month ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 506 (Part-2) IPC 2 years Rs. 500/- 1 month 376(2)(n) of the IPC 20 years Rs. 500/- 1 year 376(3) IPC 20 years Rs. 500/- 1 year All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The appellant/convict was charged alleging that on 10.05.2018 at about 11:00 pm, at the place- Chhote Kalua, Police Station Khadgawan, he entered the residence of the victim and committed house trespass caused criminal intimidation by threatening her to kill and raped the victim by forcibly having sexual intercourse with her repeatedly and thereby committing an offence punishable under sections 450, 506 (Part- II), 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the parents of the victim and the younger brother of the victim had gone to a relative's house for a wedding, the victim was alone at home, on the night of 10.05.2018 at around 11:00 pm when the victim was sleeping alone at home, at that time the appellant pushed the window of the victim's house and entered the room of the victim and pressed the mouth of the victim saying not to shout and forcibly took off the clothes worn by the victim and despite the refusal of the victim, he raped the victim against her will and said that he will marry her and take her to his house and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident. The appellant, by talking about marrying the victim, kept on having forced physical relations with her several times due to which the victim became pregnant. 4. On the basis of the complaint of the victim, an FIR (Exhibit P/1) was registered against the appellant by Police Station - Khadagwan under Crime No. 116/2018 for the offences under Section 376(2((i), (j) (n), 450, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and after the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. 3 5. When the charges under Sections 450, 506 (Part II), 376 (2) (n), 376 (3) of the IPC and Section 6 the POCSO Act were read out to the appellant, he denied the same and prayed for trial. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses namely, the victim (PW-1), Smt. Rukman (PW-2), Dr. Anirrudh Rai (PW-3), Sumar Singh (PW-4), Virendra Singh (PW-5), Salindra Yadav (PW-6), Dr. Ayushri Rai (PW-7), Shiv Dayal Jagat (PW- 8), Pramila Tigga (PW-9), R.S.Maravi (PW-10), Omkar Shankar Sahu (PW-11) and Mamta Kerketta (PW-12) and exhibited as many as 19 exhibits and 2 Articles. No defence evidence was presented by the accused in his defence. 7. The statement of the appellant/convict under section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein he stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He expressed his ignorance with respect to some of the questions and some of them were denied as well. 8. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 9. Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye witness in the case. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor on the date of incident. The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. There are omissions and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. There was no injury marks found on the body of 4 the victim and as such, the entire story appears to be concocted one and as such, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the appellant has committed a heinous crime of rape against a minor girl because of which the victim became pregnant and gave birth to a child. The medical evidence clearly supports the case of the prosecution. The age of the victim has been duly proved by documentary and oral evidence and she was minor on the date of incident. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference. 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, the FIR (Exhibit P/1) was lodged by the victim (PW-1) herself disclosing her age to be 14 years. According to the victim, the appellant committed rape upon the victim multiple times in between 10.05.2018 to 15.05.2018. She has stated that she was well acquainted with the appellant as he was the resident of same village to which the victim belonged. 13. With respect to determination of the age of the victim, the prosecution examined Virendra Singh (PW-5), who is the Head Master of Government Primary School. The police had seized the admission/ discharge register as well as the Class 5th and 8th marksheet. In the admission/discharge register (Exhibit P/10C), the name of the victim is recorded at serial No. 48 where the date of birth is recorded as 18.05.2004 and the victim was admitted in Class I on 16.06.2010 and 5 had left the school on 18.06.2015. The entries in the register were made by the said witness. The incident is said to have taken place from 10.05.2018 to 15.05.2018 and the date of birth of the victim stands proved on the basis of the admission/discharge register and there is no reason to disbelieve the said document. As such, on the date of incident, the victim was a minor aged about 14 years, in light of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. We concur with the said finding arrived at by the learned trial Court. 14. The parents of the victim (PW-1), namely Smt. Rukman (PW-2) and Sumar Singh (PW-4) have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. However, the victim (PW-1) deposed before the learned trial Court that she was well acquainted with the appellant. She explained the sequence of events as to how when, on the date of incident, she was alone at her home, the appellant entered into their house and gagged her mouth and stating that he would marry her, committed rape upon her. She was so scared that she could not inform her parents but later she informed her parents with regard to the incident. Though the parents of the victim have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, but they have also failed to explain as to how their daughter became pregnant. 15. The appellant was medically examined by Dr. Aniruddh Rai (PW-3), who, vide his report (Exhibit P/5 and P/6) opined that the appellant was fully capable of performing sexual intercourse. Since he had not found any semen stains in his underwear, he did not seize and after collecting the semen from the appellant, the same was handed over to the Constable. 16. Dr. Ayushree Rai (PW-7) had examined the victim who stated that the victim was 16 weeks pregnant. Her BP and pulse were normal. The 6 secondary sexual character of the victim were fully developed and her breasts were normal. No external injuries were found but the hymen was found ruptured recently at 6’O clock position. She had advised for HIV, V.D.R.L., HBSAG and USG. She prepared two vaginal slides and handed over to the Constable. She handed over an underwear which had stains on it, to the lady Constable. Her report is Exhibit P/11. Though the said Doctor did not find any external or internal injury, however, she stated that there were no symptom of forceful sexual intercourse. 17. The victim was a minor girl aged about 14 years and on the date of incident. She was threatened by the appellant, who was aged about 35 years, to be done to death if she discloses anything to anyone. Because of fear, she could not tell about the incident and became 4 months pregnant and when her pregnancy became visible, her parents came to know about the incident. The deposition of the victim (PW-1) is clear and unambiguous and corroborates with the contents of the FIR. The appellant could not explain as to why the victim would falsely implicate him in the offence in question. The victim became pregnant and later on delivered a baby and the said fact is not in dispute. 18. 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 victim is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. 19. 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 7 victim should not be doubted by Court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 20. 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 find no difÏculty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. 21. 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 accused 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 finding 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. 22. 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 finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict. 8 23. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 24. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 25. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail term, 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 Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 26. Let a certified copy of this order 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 Chandra