1 2026:CGHC:8250-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1148 of 2015 Pancham Minj S/o Lallu Ram Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Dharanagar, P. S. And Tahsil Shankargarh District Balrampur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S. H. O., Shankargarh, District - Balrampur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma (16.02.2026) Judgment on Board Arvind Kumar Verma, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2015 passed in Sessions Case No. 17/2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) by which the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under:- CONVICTION SENTENCE 2 u/s 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 3000/- Prosecution story: 2. The case projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that on 20.05.2013, the prosecutrix (PW-02) had gone to village Dharanagar to attend the wedding of her uncle Sukhram’s daughter Neeta. She was dancing at the wedding. At about 11:00 p.m., she went outside to urinate. At that time, the accused, a resident of village Dharanagar, followed her to a nearby field, caught hold of her hand, threw her to the ground, and tore her clothes. He pulled and tore her salwar, removed his underwear and pants, climbed on top of her, and forcibly inserted his private part into her private part, thereby committing rape upon her. After the incident, the accused fled from the spot taking her underwear and salwar. The prosecutrix wrapped the chunni she had with her around her waist, wore her upper suit, and went to the house of her aunt (Fufi), where she narrated the incident. She also informed Hando, Rajpuriheen (sister-in-law), Babulal, and Anil. After returning from the wedding, she informed her parents. On 21.05.2013, she went to the police station with her father and lodged a report. Upon the report being lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-02) at Police Station Shankargarh on 21.05.2013 against the accused, Sub-Inspector M.L. Shukla (PW-03) registered the First Information Report (Ex.P-01). He obtained written consent from the prosecutrix (PW-02) and her father Malik for her medical 3 examination (Ex.P-05 and Ex.P-06). A letter (Ex.P-07) was sent to the Executive Magistrate, Shankargarh, seeking permission for the medical examination of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was sent to the Community Health Centre, Shankargarh, for gynecological examination by a lady doctor (Ex.P-08). Thereafter, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared the spot map (Ex.P-02). Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their versions. A request (Ex.P- 09) was sent to record the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardrafnagar. On 22.07.2013, a letter (Ex.P-10) was sent to the Community Health Centre, Shankargarh, for medical examination of the accused regarding his sexual capability. The accused was arrested in the presence of witnesses as per arrest memo (Ex.P- 11), and information regarding his arrest was given to his relatives as per Ex.P-12. During investigation, Assistant Sub-Inspector Neelmani Kujur seized the birth certificate of the prosecutrix in the presence of witnesses under seizure memo (Ex.P-3). After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. 3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. 4. The learned Sessions Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the present appeal has been 4 preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission:- 5. Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that the Trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act, as there is no evidence that the appellant has committed the said alleged offence. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act. He would also submit that the age of the victim has not been proved to be less than 18 years on the date and time of offence. He would further submit that the victim (P.W.-2) was a consenting party and her statement is not of “sterling quality” in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Sandeep alias Deepu V. State (NCT of Delhi) 1 followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar V. The State of Bihar 2 . Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principles of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, would support the impugned judgment and submit that 1(2012) 8 SCC 21 2(2020) 3 SCC 443 5 prosecution has been able to prove the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records meticulously. Discussion and Analysis:- 8. Medical Evidence: PW-3/ M.L. Shukla, Sub-Inspector stated that on 21.05.2013, on the basis of the victim’s report, he recorded the First Information Report (Ex.P/1) and obtained written consent from the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her father, for conducting the medical examination of the prosecutrix as per Ex. P/5 and Ex. P/6. Thereafter, he sent an application (Ex. P/7) to the Executive Magistrate, Shankargarh, seeking permission for the medical examination of the prosecutrix. He also sent a requisition (Ex. P/8) to the Lady Doctor at Community Health Centre, Shankargarh, for the medical examination of the prosecutrix. It is noteworthy that since the prosecutrix herself refused to undergo medical examination, the prosecution could not get her medically examined and it is the case of the defence that the victim was the consenting party. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused committed rape with a minor girl on 20.05.2013 when she went to attend a marriage. The entire prosecution case rests upon the sole 6 testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-2). It is well settled that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence and is free from material contradictions. However, where her evidence is inconsistent and unreliable, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 10. In the present case, the prosecutrix (PW-20 has stated in her examination-in-chief that she was watching a wedding taking place next to her house. Accused forcibly dragged her by the hand to a nearby filed and commit rape upon her. However, during cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that on 20.06.2014, a marriage ceremony was held at her uncle’s house and approximately 150 people attended the wedding. The singing and dancing continued until approximately 1 a.m. in the courtyard of the house and when she accompanied a boy from the wedding ceremony to the fields, 10 people were present and she did not know the name of the boy with whom she went from the wedding ceremony to the field She further admitted that : (i) She had not stated before the police that her hands were tied and cloth was stuffed in her mouth and she is making this statement for the first time before the Court; (iii) No injury was caused to her body; (iv) She refused medical examination; (v) The contents of the FIR were not read over to her; (vi) The spot map was prepared at the police station and not at the place of occurrence. 7 11. The prosecutrix also admitted that she had gone towards the field with a boy during the marriage function and that it was late night and difficult to recognize faces. Such admission strikes at the root of identification of the accused. 12. It is also evident that though the FIR was lodged on the next day, the prosecutrix refused medical examination. In a case of alleged forcible sexual assault, refusal of medical examination without satisfactory explanation creates serious doubt, particularly when no injury is alleged or proved. 13. The improvements made before the Court regarding tying of hands and stuffing of cloth in the mouth are material improvements affecting the core of the prosecution story. The prosecution has not produced any independent witness to corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix, though about 150 persons were present at the marriage function. No recovery of clothes or any incriminating article has been proved. The cumulative effect of the contradictions, improvements, absence of medical evidence, doubtful identification, and lack of corroboration makes the testimony of the prosecutrix unreliable and unsafe for sustaining conviction. 14. Further, as per Ex.P/8, the Investigating Officer had sent a written requisition dated 21.05.2013 to the Lady Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Shankargarh, for conducting medical examination of the prosecutrix and for giving a report whether sexual intercourse had taken place. However, as reflected from 8 the endorsement on the said exhibit, the prosecutrix refused to undergo medical examination and, consequently, no medical report could be obtained. The prosecutrix has endorsed on the Ex. P/8 which reads as under: मैं मुलाहिजा नीं करना चाती ूं। मैं झूठी रिरपोर्ट की ूं। मेरे साथ गलत नीं ुआ ै लिलख कर दी जो समय पर काम आया। 15. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discrepancies in the statement of the victim (PW-2), we are of the considered opinion that statement of the victim is not of “sterling quality” and she is not a “sterling witness” in light of the decision o the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar (supra), and therefore, it would be unsafe to base the conviction fo the appellant on the basis of the statement of the victim (PW-2). 16. Accordingly, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence as we have already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs the statement of the victim (PW-2) is not of “sterling quality” as she fails to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. Further, in absence of medical evidence, particularly when the prosecutrix herself declined examination without any plausible explanation, creates a serious dent in the prosecution case and deprives it of vital corroborative evidence. This circumstance further strengthens the doubt regarding the prosecution version and renders the conviction unsafe. As such, it would be 9 absolutely unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant for offences in question, and, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. Conclusion:- 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Sarguja (Ambikapur), C.G. convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences in question, is hereby set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principle of benefit of doubt. Since the appellant is stated to be on bail, he need not surrender. However, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as per provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE JUDGE Madhurima