1 2026:CGHC:2059 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 530 of 2023 Sujit Kumar Pradhan S/o Vijay Kumar Pradhan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Paraskol, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, At Present Working At Assistant Training Centre, Border Security Force Chakur, Police Station- Chakur, District : Latur, Maharashtra ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipu, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Abhishek Chandra Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13/01/2026 1. Today, though the present appeal has been listed for hearing on IA No.02 of 2025, which is application for stay of the conviction of order dated 27.02.2023, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is being heard finally. 2. Accordingly, IA No. 02 of 2025 stands disposed of. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) questioning the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Judge, Raipur District-Raipur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 377/2017, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 354 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. U/s 509 of IPC Simple Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. U/s 506-II of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. U/s 08 of POCSO ACt Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the basis of the documents, that the father of the victim lodged a written report at Police Station D.D. Nagar, stating that in the month of January 2015, his younger daughter/the victim had gone to her ancestral 3 village Parsakhol, where the accused/appellant repeatedly lured her with expressions of love and affection and compelled her to talk to him. Thereafter, the appellant/accused also started coming to Raipur in search of the victim and began meeting her. When the victim refused to meet him, the appellant/accused started threatening her by saying that “if she does not meet him, he will get her parents murdered.” Due to fear of these threats, the victim started meeting the appellant/accused. In the second week of July 2016, when the victim had gone out on her scooty in connection with school work, the appellant/accused suddenly came on a motorcycle at Shanti Nagar, Raipur, and intentionally hit her, causing her injuries. Thereafter, on the pretext of providing medical treatment, the appellant/accused took the victim to a hospital, got her wounds dressed and then took her to his brother’s house situated at Professor Colony, Raipur, which was locked. After opening the lock, the appellant/accused prepared rice pulao and fed it to the victim and also gave her some medicine tablets to consume. Immediately after consuming the tablets, the victim’s head became heavy and she lost consciousness. When the victim regained consciousness, she found her clothes removed. Upon objecting to this act, the appellant/accused told her, “he has made a nude video of her, and if she disclose this incident to anyone, he will upload her video on the internet and make it viral, she will not be able to show her face to anyone.” Out of fear, the victim did not disclose the said incident to her family members. However, after this incident, the appellant/accused started harassing the victim 4 excessively by repeatedly calling her and forcing her to meet him. If the victim did not answer his calls, the appellant/accused used to call her from different numbers, abused her and threatened to make the video and audio viral on the internet. During this period, the appellant/accused forcibly gave a mobile phone to the victim to talk to him and instructed her that he would call from mobile number 7692943865, and if she did not answer the call, he would make her obscene video viral. The appellant/accused also used to frequently molest the victim while she was going to and returning from school by holding her hands and arms and touching her breasts. Due to fear of the appellant/accused’s threats, the victim concealed all these facts from her family members. However, in January–February 2017, when the victim appeared extremely frightened and distressed, her elder sister spoke to her, whereupon the victim disclosed all the above facts regarding the appellant/accused. Thereafter, the elder sister took away the victim’s mobile phone. Subsequently, the appellant/accused started calling the victim’s mother on her mobile number 90395xxxxx and began abusing her. He also started calling the victim’s friends and asked them to make the victim talk to him. During this period, in July 2017, the appellant/accused created a fake Facebook ID in the name of the victim and misused it. He uploaded the victim’s photographs with several other boys and made them viral on WhatsApp, due to which the victim suffered extreme defamation and for several days, 5 the victim’s elder sister also had to face problems in her college. For the past several days, the appellant/accused had been calling the complainant’s wife on her mobile number 9039526624 and threatening to kidnap and murder their daughter/the victim. He also threatened to throw acid on the victim while she was going to or returning from school and to make the obscene video of the victim viral. The appellant/accused further threatened that if they wanted to escape from all these consequences, they should pay ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). He stated that if the said amount was not paid, he would make the victim’s obscene video viral and get her murdered by hiring contract killers. On 03.08.2017, at about 08:30 PM, the appellant/accused called the complainant on his mobile number 94255xxxxx, abused him and threatened to make the victim’s obscene video viral and to get her murdered. On the basis of the written report (Exhibit D-02) submitted by the complainant/father of the victim, a First Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit P-04) was registered against the appellant/accused at Police Station D.D. Nagar, and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, a spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared vide Exhibit P-05. In relation to the date of birth of the victim, photocopies of the victim’s Class X progress report and Class V achievement record card, wherein her date of birth is mentioned, were seized vide seizure memo Exhibit P-08, and the admission-withdrawal register (Dakhil Kharij Register) 6 (Exhibit P-01 ‘C’) was seized vide seizure memo Exhibit P-02. Vide seizure memo Exhibit P-06, a mobile phone given to the victim by the appellant/accused, containing an Idea company SIM card bearing number 76929xxxxx, was seized from the victim’s father. Vide seizure memo Exhibit P-07, ten pages of WhatsApp messages were seized from the victim’s father. As per Exhibit P-11, the memorandum statement of the appellant/accused was recorded, and on the basis of the said memorandum statement, one Micromax company mobile phone containing Idea company SIM numbers 70899xxxxx and 97673xxxxx, one Idea SIM card bearing number 77719xxxxx, and four copies of love letters were seized from the appellant/accused vide seizure memo Exhibit P-13. 5. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded vide (Exhibit P-03). The appellant/accused was arrested and arrest memo (Exhibit P-12) was prepared. During investigation, statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, and after completion of other necessary investigative formalities, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the competent Court for offences punishable under Sections 384, 506, 354, 509- (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 6. Charges under Sections 384, 506 (Part II), 354, 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000, and Section 8 of the Protection of Children 7 from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were framed against the accused. The said charges were read over and explained to him, whereupon he denied the commission of the alleged offences and claimed to be tried. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he stated that he was innocent. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the appellant/accused. 8. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: • Principal of the victim’s school (PW-01) • Victim (PW-02) • Father of the victim (PW-03) • Sister of the victim (PW-04) • Mother of the victim (PW-05) • Ajit Pradhan (PW-06) • Rajesh Chaudhary, CSP (PW-07) • Krishna Kumar Patel, SDOP (PW-08) • Uttara Kumar Patel (PW-09) • Pankaj Ramaiya, Nodal Support Executive (PW-10) 9. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 3 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant respectfully submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside, as the same is contrary to the facts, evidence on record, and settled principles of criminal 8 jurisprudence. The entire investigation in the present case has been conducted in a mechanical, casual, and perfunctory manner, virtually by sitting within the police station, without any fair or independent field investigation, resulting in false implication of the appellant. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and there are grave, material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the victim and her sister and her parents, as the versions narrated by them in their depositions before the trial Court materially differ from the version stated in the FIR, thereby creating serious doubt about the veracity and reliability of the prosecution story. The learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate these material contradictions and omissions, which go to the very root of the case and completely demolish the credibility of the prosecution evidence. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse in nature, based on conjectures, assumptions, and presumptions rather than on cogent and reliable evidence and the appellant has been convicted in absence of any clinching proof establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, yet the learned trial Court erroneously based the conviction on surmises, ignoring the fact that the prosecution witnesses themselves have not supported the case in material particulars. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim in accordance with law, and in absence of strict and conclusive proof 9 of age, the invocation of the provisions of the POCSO Act is unsustainable. The FIR in the present case has been lodged after an unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly two years, which renders the prosecution case highly doubtful and indicates that the allegations are concocted and an afterthought. Despite serious allegations regarding preparation and circulation of an obscene video, no such video has been recovered from the possession of the appellant, nor is there any electronic, forensic, or corroborative evidence on record to substantiate the said allegation. Even as per the prosecution version, the principal allegation against the appellant is only regarding outraging the modesty of the victim and there is no legally reliable evidence to support the graver charges framed against him. The learned trial Court has also failed to consider that the appellant is a person in service, having clean antecedents, a settled career, and strong social roots, and there is no likelihood of his involvement in such an offence. In these circumstances, hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, thereby acquitting the appellant of all charges. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for by this Court. 10 12. The learned counsel for the objector most respectfully submits that the prosecution case is fully supported by the consistent and cogent testimony of the victim, which clearly establishes that the present appellant continuously threatened the victim by stating that he would make her obscene video viral on the internet and on the basis of such threats, repeatedly harassed and intimidated her. The evidence on record demonstrates that the appellant used the threat of viral circulation of the obscene video as a tool to coerce and silence the victim, thereby causing grave mental trauma and fear. The victim has categorically deposed regarding the threats extended by the appellant and her testimony finds sufficient corroboration from the statements of her parents and sister as well as from the documentary and electronic evidence collected during investigation. Minor discrepancies, if any, are natural and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The delay in lodging the FIR stands sufficiently explained due to the fear, shame and continuous intimidation faced by the victim. The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly held the appellant guilty. Therefore, no interference is called for, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11 14. The first question for consideration before this Court would be, whether the trial Court is rightly held that on the date of incident, the victim was minor? 15. When a person is charged for offence punishable under the POCSO Act, or for rape punishable in the Indian Penal Code, the age of the victim is significant and essential ingredients to prove such charge and the gravity of the offence gets changed when the child is below 18 years, 12 years and more than 18 years. Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act defines the “child” which means any person below the age of eighteen years. 16. In the present case, the prosecution has seized dakhil-kharij register of the victim (Ex.P-1 “C”), on which her date of birth is mentioned as 04.12.2001 and since defence has not challenged the documentary and oral evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the victim's date of birth being 04.12.2001, it is established that the age of the victim on the date of incident i.e. Second week of July is 15 years. Thus, at the time of the incident, the victim is a minor girl below 18 years of age. 17. The next question for consideration before us is whether the appellant has committed rape on minor victim ? 18. The victim has been examined as PW-2. In para 1 to 5 of her statement, she stated that she knew the appellant/accused, as he was a resident of her village Parsakhol, Basna. His date of birth is 04.12.2001. At the time of the incident, she was 15 years of age. 12 The beginning of the incident dates back to the year 2015, though the report was lodged in the year 2017. At the time of the incident, she had gone to stay at her elder paternal uncle’s house in her village Parsakhol, Basna. The appellant/accused came to her and proposed to her, stating that he loved her and gave his mobile number 7089920012 to her. When she refused him, the appellant/accused threatened to kill her and her parents. Out of fear, she continued to talk to the appellant/accused for some days. Thereafter, in July 2016, she stopped talking to the appellant/accused. Subsequently, she came to live at her father’s house at Sundar Nagar, Raipur. In the month of July 2016, while she was going to Shanti Nagar, Raipur on her scooty in connection with school work, the appellant/accused came on a motorcycle and deliberately hit her scooty, due to which she sustained injuries. Thereafter, the appellant/accused took her to a hospital for treatment. After getting her injuries dressed at the hospital, the appellant/accused took her to his brother’s house situated at Professor Colony, Raipur, which was already locked. The appellant/accused opened the lock and took her inside the room. He cooked food and fed her, and thereafter gave her some medicines, stating that the doctor had prescribed them. After consuming the medicines, she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found that she was not wearing any clothes on her body. When she questioned the appellant/accused as to what had happened, the appellant/accused told her that if she did not talk to him, he would make her obscene video viral. 13 Thereafter, the appellant/accused dropped her near Ghadi Chowk and threatened her that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would throw acid on her, make her video viral and kill her. Due to fear of the appellant/accused, she again started talking to him. In the month of November 2016, the appellant/accused gave him a mobile phone, through which she used to talk to him. The appellant/accused used to abuse him in filthy language. He used to come near her school and would stop her on deserted roads, hold her hand and press her chest. The appellant/accused used to abuse her and threaten to throw acid on her. He created a fake Facebook ID in her name and misused it, and used to send WhatsApp messages daily, thereby compelling and harassing her. He also forced her to write letters. Upon being questioned by her elder sister Shriya Sahu, she disclosed all the above facts to her. Thereafter, she informed her mother about the same. Her mother switched off the mobile phone given by the appellant/accused. Thereafter, the appellant/accused started calling her mother on her mobile phone and demanded ₹5,00,000/-, threatening that if the said amount was not paid, he would make her video viral. In the month of July 2016, the appellant/accused sent recordings of her mobile conversations with him to her mother and again threatened that if she did not talk to him, he would shoot her, murder her and throw acid on her. He is serving in the B.S.F. When her mother informed her father Dr. Kirtan Sahu about all these incidents, her father went to the police station and lodged a report against the appellant/accused. 14 19. Father of the victim (PW-3) has stated in para 10 of his evidence that appellant/Sujeet Pradhan is a resident of his own village Parsakhol. The victim is his daughter. The date of birth of the victim is 04-12-2001. Village Parsarskhol is his ancestral village, therefore his family and he frequently visit village Parsakhol. In village Parsakhol, the house of the appellant/accused Sujeet is near his house. In July 2017, his elder daughter informed him that the appellant/accused was threatening his younger daughter, i.e., the victim, to talk to him. His daughter, the victim, had started remaining disturbed. When he asked the victim, she told him that in July 2017, in village Parsakhol, the appellant/accused gave his mobile number to her and forced her to talk to him. The victim further told him that in the month of July 2017 itself, when she had gone to a cyber café for photocopying, the appellant/accused came from the front and hit the victim’s scooty, due to which she suffered an injury on her hand. The appellant/accused then seated the victim on his motorcycle and took her to the hospital. After primary treatment, the appellant/accused took the victim to the house of his elder brother located in Professor Colony. There, he fed the victim pulao and gave her pain medicines, after consuming which the victim became unconscious. The victim stated that after regaining consciousness, she found that there were no clothes on her body. When the victim asked, the appellant/accused told her that he had taken nude photographs of her and threatened to make them viral if she told anyone. Thereafter, the appellant/accused dropped the victim back at Ghadi Chowk. From Ghadi Chowk, the victim’s friend came and 15 took her and then the victim’s friend dropped her at her home. The victim stated that while going to and coming from school, the appellant/accused used to forcibly stop her, hold her hands tightly, and press her chest and breasts. The appellant/accused used to threaten the victim that if she did not talk to him, he would make the video viral. The appellant/accused had also given a mobile phone to the victim, which they took as soon as they came to know about it. The appellant/accused started threatening his wife and his elder daughter on WhatsApp, saying that no one could harm him, that he was a soldier and that he would shoot them. The appellant/accused also uploaded his elder daughter’s photograph with 4–6 boys and sent it to his elder daughter and her other friends, due to which his elder daughter also became disturbed. The appellant/accused used to put his and his wife’s photographs on his status. In July–August 2017, the appellant/accused called on his wife’s mobile phone and threatened that if they wanted to be saved from all this, they should give ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). The appellant/accused called his wife, but he talked to him. On 03-08-2017 at about 8:30 PM, the appellant/accused called his on his mobile phone and threatened to get him killed and to commit murder. He created a fake Facebook ID in the name of his daughter (the victim), in which he used the victim’s photographs and made obscene comments. In this manner, the appellant/accused harassed them for 2–3 years. Thereafter, he lodged a written complaint against the appellant/accused at Police Station DD Nagar; the said complaint is Exhibit D-1, on which his signatures appear on portions A to A. The 16 registered First Information Report is Exhibit P-4, on which his signatures appear on portions A to A. The spot map was prepared by the police after coming to the spot, which is Exhibit P-5, on which his signatures appear on portions A to A. The mobile phone which the appellant/accused had given to the victim was seized; the seizure memo is Exhibit P-6, on which his signatures appear on portions A to A. He had provided copies of the messages sent by the appellant/accused, the seizure memo of which is Exhibit P-7, along with which a total of 10 pages of messages are annexed, and on Exhibit P-7 his signatures appear on portions A to A. With regard to the date of birth of his daughter (the victim), the marksheets of Class Fifth and Tenth were seized, the seizure memo is Exhibit P-8, on which her signatures appear on portions A to A, and the true copies of the seized marksheets are Exhibits P-9 and P-10. He had given his statement to the police. The initiation of conversation between the appellant/accused and the victim took place in the year 2015, but they came to know about it only in the year 2017. 20. Smt.Prabha Minj (PW-1), Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, District-Raipur has been posted from 18.08.2017. She appeared along with the original School Admission and Withdrawal Register No. 02. In page No. 13 of the said register, at Entry No. 1695, the name of the student is recorded as (victim name), father’s name, mother’s, resident of Sundar Nagar, Raipur, occupation – service. The date of birth of the student is recorded as 04.12.2001. The date of admission is recorded as 20.11.2013 and the class of admission is recorded as Class VII, duly entered. The original Admission and 17 Withdrawal Register is Exhibit P-1 and its certified copy is Exhibit P- 1/C, on which her signatures appear on portions A to A. Upon demand by the police, the Admission and Withdrawal Register was produced by her. After comparison of the photocopy with the original and on being found correct, the exhibit mark was afÏxed. The said Admission and Withdrawal Register was seized by the police from her vide seizure memo Exhibit P-2, on which her signatures appear on portions A to A. 21. In the Indian society refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non- permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society and when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to be self- inflicted, is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. A woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. The observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54) were: 18 “The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge...”. 22. A victim of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the victim. There is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’) similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the victim it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to 19 the testimony of the victim must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a victim is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is own to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the victim does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. 23. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 1998 SC 635 has held that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. 24. Considering the statement of the victim (PW-2) who has specifically stated the conduct of the appellant, the statement of her father (PW-3), material available on record and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments, I am of the considered opinion that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Judge, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the above-mentioned offences. I do 20 not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 25. In the result, 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Judge to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 26. The appellant/accused is reported to be on bail. He shall surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of two weeks from today, failing which he shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the remaining part of sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. 27. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action.. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal