1 CRA No. 1803 of 2019 2025:CGHC:55866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1803 of 2019 Krishna Patel S/o Manharan Patel Aged About 17 Years 9 Months, R/o Ram Nagar, Azad Chowk, Behind Mishra Wood Stack, Police Station Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Centre, Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 17/11/2025 1. Since the present appellant was aged about 17 years and 09 months at the time of incident, the charge sheet, after completion of investigation, was filed before Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Durg. However, the JJB referred the matter back to the trial Court concerned observing that the offence committed by the child in conflict with law (CCL), being above SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.11.20 14:55:36 +0530 2 CRA No. 1803 of 2019 16 years of age, was found to be a heinous crime and the said CCL needed to be tried as an adult by the trial Court concerned, thereafter, the case was transferred to the trial Court for its adjudication and due disposal. Thus, the present appellant is treated as an adult. 2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2019 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 60/2017 by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge/ Juvenile Court/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Durg, C.G., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 376(2)(i) of the IPC R.I. for 10 year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25/07/2016, the mother (PW/2) of the victim lodged a report to the effect that on 24.07.2016, when the victim aged about 05 years went to the bathroom, she cried while urinating. Then she asked her daughter, what happened daughter, why are you crying, what is giving you pain, to which the victim told her that she is having pain in the place where she is urinating. Then she got scared and when she asked the victim lovingly, her daughter/victim told that she had gone to play at her elder father's house, when there was no one in the house of Krishna Bhaiya. He made her lie down on the cot, took off his clothes and started putting his penis in her private part, then she started crying due to pain, then the appellant asked her to get 3 CRA No. 1803 of 2019 down from the cot and she told that she had come home. On the above complaint of the complainant, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Mrs. Kamla Yadav (PW-7) posted at Police Post Vaishali Nagar, Police Station Supela registered a case against the appellant and investigation has been initiated. 4. During the investigation, Spot Map was got prepared. The Accused was apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 08 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 27/07/2019 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the statement of the victim is filled with contradictions and omissions in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., thus not worthy of being given credence. He further submits that conviction cannot be based on guesswork. He submits that the statement of the victim is not to be believed in absence of corroboration and prosecution story is filled 4 CRA No. 1803 of 2019 with doubts, benefit whereof should be extended to the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also submits that the medical report would not support the case of the prosecution. He would also submit that the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and without there being any cogent evidence, the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is just and proper and warrants no interference of this court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 10. As regards the age of the prosecutrix, the victim (PW-1) stated that she was studying in Class 2 and was 7 years old. The mother of the victim, in support of the victim's statements, also stated that she is 7 years old and studies in Class 2. She provided the birth certificate, which was seized by the police as per seizure memo Ex. P-6, according to which the date of birth is 07.07.2011. The grandfather of the victim (PW-4) also stated that the victim was 7 years old and studying in Class 2. Thus, the prosecutrix was a minor, well below the statutory threshold of adulthood. 5 CRA No. 1803 of 2019 The testimony of PW-2, being the natural guardian, carries substantial evidentiary value and unambiguously establishes the minority of the victim. 11. Now the sole question for consideration would come, whether the appellant committed such offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC. 12. The victim was examined as PW/1. She stated in her examination that she knew and recognized the appellant/ Krishna Patel. She stated that on the date of the incident, she went to play at Krishna Bhaiya's house. Only Bhaiya was present at that time. He gave her water to drink, laid her on a cot, removed her knickers, and then removed his own. He put his penis in her private part. She began to feel pain and began crying. Thereafter, he got her off from the cot and drove her out of the house. When she returned home, she was still in pain and was unable to sleep. She then told her mother that she was experiencing pain in her private part. Thereafter, she told her mother that Krishna Bhaiya had inserted his penis in her private part, causing her pain. The victim also touched her private parts and reported the pain therein. She also told the police about the incident. Later, she described the same narrative in the Court. 13. The mother/complainant (PW-2) of the victim stated in her examination that she recognized the accused. The victim is her daughter. The incident occurred on July 22nd, 2016. The victim was very frightened and crying profusely. When asked, the victim stated she went to play at Krishna Patel's house. Krishna Bhaiya laid her down on the cot, gave her water, 6 CRA No. 1803 of 2019 and then removed her clothes. Krishna Bhaiya also removed his clothes. He inserted his penis in her private part, causing bleeding and pain. She was also afraid of when the victim told her about the incident. She waited for her father-in-law to arrive. She then told her father-in-law about the incident and took the victim to the hospital. She then took the victim and her family to the Vaishali Nagar police station and filed an FIR (Ex.P-1). She further stated that after she lodged the report, the police came to the spot and investigated the incident. 14. Furthermore, the medical witness Dr. Manju Rathore (PW-5) stated in her statement that she was posted as a Medical Officer at the District Hospital, Durg, and was on the night shift in the obstetrics department. On 24/07/2016, at 11:45 pm, the victim of the present case, aged about 5 years, was brought to her for medical examination by a female constable, and she examined her with the consent of her mother. According to the victim's mother, the victim was said to have been raped three days ago. She further stated in her examination that there were no visible injuries on the victim's body or her private parts. However, upon internal examination, she determined that the victim's hymen had been torn. Two slides were prepared from the victim's vagina, sealed, and handed over to the same female constable for chemical testing. After the examination, she concluded that an attempted sexual intercourse had occurred, resulting in a ruptured hymen. She did not offer a definitive opinion regarding immediate sexual intercourse, and recommended that two vaginal slides be prepared from the victim's genitals and subjected to chemical testing for a definitive opinion. 7 CRA No. 1803 of 2019 15. If the testimony of the victim is trustworthy and totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the victim does not have a strong motive to falsely implicate the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her/his evidence. 16. It has also become almost settled position of law that conviction can be based on the solitary statement of victim, provided same inspires confidence of the Court. 17. In such heinous offences, a ‘sterling’ witness refers to a witness whose testimony is of high quality on caliber to the extent that the Court can accept their version of events without requiring additional corroboration. The Supreme Court in ‘n’ numbers of cases, has observed that the testimony of a victim can be sufficient for conviction, if it is trustworthy and of sterling quality. 18. 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 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 8 CRA No. 1803 of 2019 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 any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more recise, the version of the said witness on the core 9 CRA No. 1803 of 2019 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.” 19. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the rape and penetrative sexual assault inflicted on the victim by the accused is corroborated by the testimony of the medical witness regarding the injuries to the victim's genitals. PW-5 clearly stated in her examination that upon internal examination, the victim's hymen was found to be torn and that an attempt had been made to have sexual intercourse with her. Thus, the opinion of the medical witness also confirms the occurrence of rape and penetrative sexual assault on the victim. The medical witness also stated that during the medical examination, she prepared two slides from the victim's vagina, sealed them, and handed them to a female constable for chemical testing. These slides were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. The examination report, Ex.P-26, reveals the presence of human sperm in the victim's seized vaginal slide. The chemical examination report confirms the incident that happened with the victim. 20. Therefore, on the basis of the above complete evidence analysis of the prosecution, it is evident that the accused/ appellant committed rape and penetrated and aggravated penetrative sexual assault was committed 10 CRA No. 1803 of 2019 with her by the accused, which is proved beyond doubt by the prosecution evidence. 21. Applying the well settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above stated judgment and after perusing the evidence available on record, it stands established on record beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the victim, intending to commit rape upon her. Victim/PW-1 has categorically assigned role to the accused in commission of said offence against her. Therefore, having aforesaid materials on record, compels this Court to hold that prosecution has proved on record beyond reasonable doubt, that on the date of incident, the accused knowingly assaulted the victim, intending to commit rape upon her. Hence the trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire facts of the case and convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC. 22. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 23. The appellant is stated to be in jail and he shall serve out the remaining period of jail sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail 11 CRA No. 1803 of 2019 sentence 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. 24. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar