1 CRA No. 1050 of 2001 2025:CGHC:56591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1050 of 2001 Sudhakar, S/O/ Lambodar Sahu, aged about 42 years R/O Baranda, P.S. Balmala, Dist. Angoor (Orrissa) Presnt R/o Cornal Security Camp, Dipka, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of C.G through P.S. Kusmunda, Tehsil Katghora Dist Korba ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Smt. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 20/11/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 152/ 99 by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.24 12:12:24 +0530 2 CRA No. 1050 of 2001 Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 of the IPC R. I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulations 2. As per the prosecution case, on 04.02.2011 at about 14:00 hours near Shaili Nursery under Police Station Kusmunda, the accused allegedly committed rape upon the prosecutrix. On the date of the incident, the prosecutrix along with her friends had gone to collect scrap when they met the accused, who informed them that he wished to sell iron and asked the prosecutrix to accompany him alone. When she refused, the accused abused them and chased them with a stick, causing them to run. While fleeing, the prosecutrix dropped her sack, and when she returned to retrieve it, the accused caught hold of her hand, threw her to the ground, attempted to commit rape and, despite her resistance, forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and also bit her on the cheek. The prosecutrix thereafter reported the incident at Police Station Kusmunda, on the basis of which Crime No. 57/99 was registered. 3. During the investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. 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. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 3 CRA No. 1050 of 2001 8 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. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 28.09.1999 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in crime in question and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He would submit that there is no sufficient material available to connect the accused with the crime in question. He would further submit there is no eye witness of the incident and the other witnesses have turned hostile. He further submits that no internal injury has been found on the genitals of the prosecutrix, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The question for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for the offences in 4 CRA No. 1050 of 2001 question ? 10. PW-6, the victim, deposed that she, along with other women, was proceeding towards Shailo Mines to collect scrap when they encountered the accused, who informed them that he had two quintals of iron to sell and asked them to accompany him to the place where it was kept. She stated that the accused insisted that she alone should go with him, but when she refused, he started beating them with a stick, causing all of them to run away. While fleeing, she dropped her slipper, and when she returned to retrieve her slipper and sack, the accused caught her hand, dragged her, threw her to the ground, and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that the accused bit her on the cheek, resulting in swelling. 11. PW-2, friend of victim, deposed that she and the victim had gone separately to collect scrap and that the incident was about a month prior. She stated that she went near the railway track in the jungle area to collect scrap and did not meet anyone on the way, and further asserted that she had no knowledge of the incident involving the victim. She added that upon returning home, the victim informed her that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her. At this stage, the witness was declared hostile. 12. Dr. Sujata Shrivastava (PW-8) stated that on 09.02.1999, the victim was brought before her for medical examination. The medical officer deposed that on examining the victim, she found a 5 CRA No. 1050 of 2001 hematoma measuring about 2.5 × 2.5 cm over the left occipital region with swelling and tenderness, an abrasion of about 0.5 cm on the left cheek with scab formation, and swelling with bluish discoloration over the left infra-orbital region. On internal examination, she found that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse and no internal injury was present, therefore no definite opinion regarding recent forcible sexual intercourse could be given. The injuries on the head, cheek and face were simple in nature and caused by a hard and blunt object. 13. 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 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 6 CRA No. 1050 of 2001 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 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 7 CRA No. 1050 of 2001 alleged.” 14. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the context of Indian culture, a woman-victim of sexual aggression-would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the courts must always keep in mind that no self-respecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. But for high improbability in the prosecution case, the conviction in the case of sex crime may be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. It has been rightly said that corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape nor the absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim can be construed as evidence of consent. 15. Rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely assault, it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. The murderer destroys the physical body of his victim. Rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. 16. Applying the well settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above stated judgment and after perusing 8 CRA No. 1050 of 2001 the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-6), the medical evidence of PW-8, and the overall material on record, this Court finds no reason to differ with the well-reasoned findings of the trial Court. The testimony of the victim is natural, consistent, and inspires confidence. Her version remains unshaken and is duly supported by medical evidence showing contemporaneous injuries on the head, cheek and face, which stand consistent with the manner of assault described by her. The medical opinion that the prosecutrix was habituated to intercourse and that no internal injury was found does not in any manner dilute the prosecution case as the victim is married lady, as law is well settled that absence of injuries on the genitals is not decisive to discard the testimony of a victim of sexual assault. The hostile stance of PW-2 does not affect the prosecution case, for the conviction can be sustained on the sole, reliable testimony of the prosecutrix, when it is trustworthy, as in the present case. The defence of false implication is wholly unsubstantiated and appears to be a bald denial. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and do not suffer from perversity or illegality. 17. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record and further considering the fact that there is no motive or rivalry between the parties to falsely implicate the appellant, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in 9 CRA No. 1050 of 2001 proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentenced as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 18. The accused is reported to be on bail. After release on bail, he failed to appear for which bailable/non-bailable warrants were issued. Subsequently, permanent warrant was also issued. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining period of sentence. 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. 19. 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 shoaib/Jyoti