1 2026:CGHC:3806-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 561 of 2025 Ahmad Mukhtar @ Ahmad Mokhtar Alam @ Prince S/o Sheikh Ayub Aged About 21 Years R/o Indira Nagar Hathkoj Beside Canal, Behind Telkam Boundary, P.S. Purani Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 .01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.01.27 14:25:05 +0530 2 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge 4th FTSC Special Court Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 174 of 2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for 20 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I. more. Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) R.I. for 03 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I. more. Section 323 of the IPC R.I. for 03 months and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I. more. All the sentence shall run concurrently 3. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 25.10.2022, the mother of the victim (PW-3) lodged a report at Police Station Purani Bhilai stating that she has two daughters. Her elder daughter/the victim (PW-1) was studying in Class IX and was aged about 14 years and 9 months. On the night of 24.10.2022, the complainant was at home, and her elder daughter was standing outside the house talking to someone 3 on the phone, while her younger daughter was also present outside with her. At about 9:00 p.m., the younger daughter came and informed the complainant that the accused, Mukhtar Khan, a resident of Indira Nagar, Hathkhoj, had come near the house and, by enticing the victim, made her sit on his motorcycle and took her away. The complainant informed her brother-in-law about the incident, and together they searched for the girl in the nearby area, but she could not be found. The complainant suspected that the accused Mukhtar Khan had enticed and kidnapped her minor daughter from her lawful guardianship. On the basis of the written report of the victim’s mother (PW-3), Crime No. 481/2022 was registered on 25.10.2022 under Section 363 of the IPC against the accused Mukhtar Khan, and the investigation commenced. The First Information Report (FIR) is Ex.P/8. 4. During the course of investigation, on 25.10.2022, the victim was produced at Police Station Purani Bhilai by her mother and was recovered in the presence of witnesses. A recovery panchnama (Ex.P/1) was prepared. A requisition (Ex.P/45) was sent through the Station House Officer, Police Station Purani Bhilai, to the Cyber Cell, Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg, for providing the call detail records (CDR) and tower location of mobile number 8085163576 belonging to the accused Mukhtar Khan. The note-sheet in this regard is Ex.P/46. A lady police officer interrogated the victim, and her statement was recorded as narrated by her. The Investigating Officer (PW-6) recorded the statements of the victim’s mother, her uncle (PW-4), her sister (PW-2), and witness Sagar Sukhdeve (PW-8) as per their respective versions. 4 5. Upon prima facie finding that the accused Ahmed Mukhtar alias Ahmed Mukhtar Alam alias Prince had committed an offence under Section 363 of the IPC, he was arrested on 26.10.2022 in the presence of witnesses. The arrest memo is Ex.P/16, and intimation of arrest was given to his relatives vide Ex.P/30. The victim’s mother was directed through notice Ex.P/3 to produce the underwear worn by the victim at the time of the incident. In compliance, the said underwear was produced and seized in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P/4. A requisition (Ex.P/23) was sent to Government Hospital, Bhilai- 03, for examination of the seized underwear. 6. Before conducting the medical examination of the victim’s private parts, consent was obtained from the victim and her mother vide Exs.P/2 and P/10. Thereafter, a requisition (Ex.P/22) was sent to Government Hospital, Bhilai-03, for medical examination, and the medical examination report (Ex.P/52) was received. The victim’s mother produced the birth certificate of the victim showing her date of birth as 11.01.2008, along with her school result and Aadhaar card. These documents were seized in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P/13. After the medical examination, a sealed slide prepared from the vaginal swab of the victim was brought from the hospital by Lady Constable Keelam Verma and seized in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P/24. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer issued notice Ex.P/17 to the victim’s mother and uncle to bring the victim to the place of occurrence for investigation. On 13.12.2022, based on the version of the victim’s mother, a spot map (Ex.P/9) was 5 prepared at the place from where the victim was taken away. Requisitions Ex.P/19 and Ex.P/25 were sent to the school principal and headmaster respectively to produce the admission register of the victim, which were seized vide seizure memos Exs.P/20 and P/26. A requisition (Ex.P/27) was sent to the Halka Patwari of Hathkhoj for preparation of a map of the place of occurrence, which was received as Ex.P/7. A request (Ex.P/43) was sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai- 03, for recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and the said statement was received as Ex.P/5. A requisition (Ex.P/44) was also sent to the Child Welfare Committee, District Durg, for recording the statement of the victim. 7. During the investigation, accused No. 2, Laxminarayan Pandey, and accused No. 3, Kamlesh Kumar, were arrested on 05.12.2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376(D), 323, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Their arrest memos are Exs.P/31 and P/32, and information regarding their arrest was given to their relatives vide Ex.P/33. The victim stated during interrogation that the accused had taken her to Armaan’s house. Accordingly, notices (Ex.P/18) were issued to the victim, her mother, and her sister to identify Armaan’s house at Khursipar; however, the said house could not be identified. Consequently, a panchnama regarding non-identification of the house was prepared, which is Ex.P/12. A requisition (Ex.P/28) was sent to the manager of Apna Keshari Lodge, Power House, Chhawani, District Durg, to produce the entry-exit register. In compliance, the lodge manager produced the register dated 25.10.2022, Serial No. 041, Room 6 No. 303, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/29. 8. The accused Ahmed Mukhtar alias Ahmed Mukhtar Alam alias Prince produced the underwear worn by him at the time of the incident, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/14. Accused No. 2, Laxminarayan Pandey, and accused No. 3, Kamlesh Kumar, were directed through notices Exs.P/34 and P/35 to produce the underwear worn by them at the time of the incident. In response, both accused stated in writing that the underwear had been torn due to its old condition and discarded. Accused Laxminarayan Pandey also produced the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-BL-4768 used in the incident, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/15. 9. The potency test of accused Ahmed Mukhtar alias Ahmed Mukhtar Alam alias Prince was conducted to ascertain his capability to perform sexual intercourse. A requisition (Ex.P/36) was sent to Government Hospital, Supela. His medical examination report (Ex.P/50) and underwear examination report (Ex.P/51) were received. Similarly, the potency tests of accused No. 2, Laxminarayan Pandey, and accused No. 3, Kamlesh Kumar, were conducted through requisitions Exs.P/37 and P/38 sent to Government Hospital, Bhilai-03. Their medical examination reports are Exs.P/48 and P/49 respectively. Through the Superintendent of Police, Durg, the seized underwear of the victim and accused No. 1, along with the vaginal swab slide of the victim, were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for chemical examination and opinion. The forwarding letter is Ex.P/40, 7 acknowledgment is Ex.P/41, and the FSL report/opinion is Ex.P/42. 10. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court, Special Court (POCSO Act), Durg (Chhattisgarh). Upon transfer, the case was received by this Court on 09.04.2024 at the stage of prosecution evidence. 11. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons and proceeded with the trial. The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded false implication. The prosecution failed to prove the charges against accused Laxminarayan Pandey and Kamlesh Kumar under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(2)(k), 323 read with Section 34, and Section 506 Part-II of the IPC, as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act, beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, they were acquitted by granting the benefit of doubt. 12. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced 52 documents. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all incriminating circumstances and claimed false implication. After due appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 02 of the judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant respectfully submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and the consequent order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are wholly unsustainable in law as well 8 as on facts. It is contended that there is no cogent, reliable, or trustworthy evidence on record to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The entire case of the prosecution rests on conjectures, surmises, and assumptions rather than on clear, convincing, and legally admissible evidence; therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that the appellant has been convicted solely on the testimony of the victim (PW-1), whose version is inconsistent, unreliable, and suffers from material infirmities, contradictions, and improvements. In her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the victim categorically stated that she knew the appellant and was in a love affair with him; however, in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., as well as in her deposition before the Court, she completely denied the existence of any such relationship. This material and unexplained shift in the version of the victim strikes at the very root of her credibility and renders her testimony unsafe for sustaining the conviction of the appellant. 14. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the sole testimony of the victim (PW-1) does not inspire confidence and is not of sterling quality, particularly when the same witness has given mutually destructive versions at different stages of the investigation and trial, and when there is no independent or corroborative evidence to support her allegations. It is further contended that the learned trial Court held the age of the victim to be 14 years, 9 months, and 13 days on the basis of the birth 9 certificate (Article A/1) and the admission-discharge register (Ex.P/21C). However, the birth certificate, which was seized from the mother of the victim and mentions the date of birth as 11.01.2008, was not proved in accordance with law, as the basis on which the date of birth was recorded was not explained by the victim’s mother, nor was the issuing authority of the birth certificate examined before the Court. This omission creates serious doubt regarding the authenticity and reliability of the said document. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court be set aside, and the appellant be acquitted of all charges framed against him. 15. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and contends that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, and that no interference by this Court is warranted. 16. We 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. 17. The first question for consideration before this Court would be, whether the learned trial Court has rightly held that on the date of incident, the victim was minor? 18. When a person is charged for the offence punishable under the POCSO Act, or for rape punishable in the Indian Penal Code, the age of 10 the victim is significant and essential ingredient 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. 19. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding principles for determining the age of a child, which read as follows: “22. On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed under Section 68(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as under : “12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.? (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, 11 prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining – (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may 12 be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub- rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.” 13 23. Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine the age of the prosecutrix VW-PW6. The manner of determining age conclusively, has been expressed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated option available, would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal 14 authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion.” 20. In the present case, according to the prosecution, the date of birth of the victim is 11.01.2008. On this basis, she was aged 14 years, 9 months, and 13 days at the time of the incident. To substantiate this fact, the prosecution produced the birth certificate (Article A-1), a copy of the Aadhaar card (Article A-3), and the Admission-Discharge Register (Ex.P/21C) of Class IX of Government Higher Secondary School, Hathkhoj, Tehsil Bhilai-03, District Durg (C.G.). The said register (Ex.P/21C) was duly proved by PW-5, Smt. Manisha Thakur, Lecturer of the said school. In her deposition, PW-5 categorically stated that the victim was admitted to Class IX on 10.06.2021 and that her date of birth was recorded in the school register as 11.01.2008 on the basis of the birth certificate produced at the time of admission. 21. The victim’s mother (PW-3) also deposed that the date of birth of the victim is 11.01.2008, which is consistent with the birth certificate of the victim (Article A-1). On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, and upon calculating the age from the date of birth i.e. 11.01.2008, the victim was aged 14 years, 9 months, and 13 days at the time of the 15 incident, thereby clearly establishing that she was below 15 years of age at the relevant time. 22. The defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to challenge the recorded date of birth of the victim. In the absence of any contrary material on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the date of birth as 11.01.2008. Accordingly, we concur with the finding of the learned trial Court that the victim was aged 14 years, 9 months, and 13 days at the time of the incident and was, therefore, a minor below 15 years of age. 23. The next question for consideration before us is whether the appellant has committed penetrative sexual assault by having sexual intercourse with the victim, being a minor girl, without her free will and consent ? 24. In this regard, the victim (PW-1) stated that her date of birth is 11.01.2008 and that she is studying in Class IX. The incident took place on 24.10.2022, on the day of Diwali. At about 9:00 p.m., she was standing outside her house when the accused, Ahmed Mukhtar, arrived on a motorcycle along with his friend Laxminarayan. They forcibly made her sit on the motorcycle and took her to Engineer Park. There, they called another friend of theirs, Kamlesh, and took out the mobile phone kept in her pocket and broke it. Thereafter, the accused Ahmed Mukhtar and his two friends, namely Laxminarayan and Kamlesh, started assaulting her. The accused persons dragged her by her hair, threw her on the ground, and beat her repeatedly, as a result of which she 16 sustained injuries on her face and other parts of her body. All three accused also attempted to outrage her modesty and forcibly committed acts against her. When people present at Engineer Park started watching, the accused persons abused them and chased them away. Due to the gathering of people, the accused took her across the railway crossing to a dirt road beneath a transport culvert. There also, the accused chased her and assaulted her. The accused Mukhtar Alam pressed her neck. When some people saw the incident and objected, the accused persons took her to the hospital. At the hospital, the doctor advised that she be admitted, but the accused did not get her admitted and instead took her with them to a friend’s house in Khursipar. There, all three accused committed gang rape upon her and threatened her that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, they would kill her and her family members. On the next morning, the accused Laxminarayan and Ahmed Mukhtar took her to Keshari Lodge. Thereafter, accused Laxminarayan left from there. At Keshari Lodge, accused Mukhtar Alam again forcibly had physical relations with her. After some time, police personnel arrived at Keshari Lodge along with her elder uncle and took her and the accused Mukhtar Alam to the police station. 25. She further stated that upon her mother producing her before the police, the police prepared her recovery panchnama, which is Ex.P/1. The police obtained her consent for examination of her private part, which is the consent letter Ex.P/2. The police took her to the hospital for her medical examination. The police issued her a notice to produce the underwear worn by her at the time of the incident, which is Ex.P/3. 17 Upon her producing the underwear worn at the time of the incident, the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/4. The police took her to the Court for recording her statement before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. Her statement was recorded before the Magistrate, which is Ex.P/5. The Patwari prepared the map of the place of occurrence as per her disclosure, which is Ex.P/7. She also stated that even prior to this incident, a boy named Ahmed used to harass her. 26. The younger sister of the victim (PW-2) stated that the incident took place last year on the 24th, on the day of Diwali. At about 9:00–9:30 p.m., she and her elder sister/the victim went into the courtyard to light lamps. At that time, the accused Mukhtar and Laxmi Narayan arrived on a motorcycle and forcibly took her sister with them. She then went inside the house and informed her mother about the incident. Thereafter, her mother informed her elder uncle over the phone. Subsequently, her mother and her elder uncle went to the police station and lodged a report regarding the incident. 27. The victim’s mother (PW-3) stated that she knows the accused persons, as they are residents of her neighbourhood. She further stated that the victim is her daughter, whose date of birth is 11.01.2008, and that she has studied up to Class IX. She deposed that the incident took place on 24.10.2022, during Diwali, at about 9:00 p.m. At that time, she was performing worship inside her house, while the victim and her younger sister (PW-2) were outside the house placing Diwali lamps. Her younger daughter (PW-2) then came running to her and informed her 18 that someone had taken the victim away. The younger daughter also told her that the persons who took the victim were the accused Mukhtar Ahmed and Laxmi Narayan Pandey, whom she could identify. Immediately after receiving this information, she came outside the house and searched for the victim in and around the house, but the victim could not be found. She then immediately telephoned her brother-in-law, informed him about the incident, and asked him to come to her house. Upon her calling him, her brother-in-law came to the house. Thereafter, she, her brother-in-law, and her younger daughter (PW-2) went to Police Station Bhilai-03 and lodged a report regarding the incident. The police officers of Police Station Bhilai-03 attempted to trace the victim by calling her mobile phone; however, the phone was not reachable. Thereafter, she, along with the police personnel, went to the house of accused Mukhtar Ahmed and inquired about his whereabouts, asking where he had taken the victim and where she was kept. At that time, the mother of accused Mukhtar stated, “Why have you people come here? Leave from here,” and informed them that the accused was not present at home. 28. She further stated that on the next day, accused Kamlesh Prasad went to Police Station Bhilai and informed the police about the incident, stating that the victim had been severely assaulted by accused Mohammed Mukhtar and that, after committing rape upon her, she had been kept naked in a lodge. Thereafter, the police took accused Kamlesh along and went to the lodge; her brother-in-law also accompanied them. The police brought the victim and the accused 19 persons, Mukhtar Ahmed and Laxminarayan, from the lodge to the police station. 29. Dr. Ayesha Parvin (PW-11), who examined the victim, stated that on 26.10.2022, Constable Hafiz Sabri, No. 591, of Police Station Purani Bhilai, produced the victim, aged about 14 years, before her at 1:48 p.m. for medical examination. With the consent of the victim and her mother, she conducted the medical examination of the victim. 30. On external examination, it was found that the victim’s blood pressure was 110/82 mmHg, pulse rate was 70 per minute, and respiratory rate was 16 per minute. She had 15 teeth each in the upper and lower jaws. Her height was 137 cm and her weight was 45.70 kilograms. At the time of examination, the victim was fully conscious and in a normal condition. Her genital organs were developed according to her age. The victim stated that her last menstrual period was on 31.09.2022 and that she had been menstruating since the age of 12 years. Pubic and axillary hair were present, and her breasts were developed. On further examination, reddish abrasion marks measuring 3 × 5 cm were found on the victim’s face. A bluish abrasion mark measuring 3 × 3 cm was present on her right shoulder. A reddish mark measuring 3 × 1 cm was found near her right eye. An abrasion measuring 2 × 5 cm was present on her thigh. An abrasion mark measuring 1 × 0.5 cm was found on her right hand. On examination of the victim’s private part, no external injury marks were found on the genital area. The hymen was found to be torn. On conducting the finger 20 test, one finger could be easily inserted. The mouth of the uterus (cervix) was found to be closed. During the genital examination, she prepared two slides from the vaginal swab of the victim, sealed them, and handed them over to the same constable for chemical examination. A urine test was conducted to determine pregnancy, and the result was negative. The examination report prepared by her is marked as Ex.P/52. 31. Dr. Abhishek Shrivastava (PW-10), who examined the appellant, stated that on 26.10.2022 at about 3:45 p.m., the accused Ahmad Khan, son of Sheikh, aged about 21 years, was produced before him for medical examination by Constable S. K. Choubey, No. 498, of Police Station Purani Bhilai. During the examination, it was found that the accused had body hair and that pubic hair was present. His beard and moustache were present. On examination of the genital organs, it was found that the testes and penis were fully developed. The accused was circumcised. Smegma was absent, and the cremasteric reflex was present. He further stated that the appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. The medical examination report prepared by him is marked as Ex.P/50. 32. 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 21 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, reported in (AIR 1952 SC 54) were: “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.…” 33. Crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a 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 a physical assault - it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer 22 destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Court, therefore, shoulders a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the victim, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the victim inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the victim must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestation. This position was highlighted in State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384. 34. 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 23 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 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. 35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, reported in 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 24 with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. 36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 held as under:- “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 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 25 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 precise, 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 alleged.” 37. From the cumulative appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is clearly established that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the victim (PW-1) is cogent, consistent, and trustworthy, and is fully corroborated by the statements of her younger sister (PW-2) and her mother (PW-3), who are natural and reliable witnesses. The evidence on record conclusively proves that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. Her version regarding abduction, assault, and repeated sexual assault by the appellant has remained unshaken during cross- examination. 26 38. The medical evidence, including the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) of the victim proved by Dr. Ayesha Parvin (PW-11), supports the prosecution case and establishes the presence of multiple injuries on the victim’s body, a torn hymen, and findings consistent with sexual assault. The medical examination of the appellant, proved by Dr. Abhishek Shrivastava (PW-10), further establishes that the appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. The forensic science laboratory (FSL) report also supports the prosecution case and corroborates the medical and ocular evidence on record. 39. There is no material contradiction or infirmity in the prosecution evidence so as to discredit its case. The defence has failed to bring on record any evidence to rebut the prosecution version or to create a reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 40. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the present case, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no reason to doubt the credibility and trustworthiness of the victim. She is found to be a reliable and trustworthy witness. Therefore, even without any further corroboration, the conviction of the appellant/accused based on the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. 41. From the foregoing analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable 27 doubt, and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in recording the finding of guilt against the appellant/convict. 42. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 43. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is presently in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. 44. The Registry is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. The Registry shall also send a certified copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of the Jail concerned, where the appellant is undergoing sentence, for service upon the appellant, informing him that he is at liberty to challenge the present judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan