1 2026:CGHC:4898-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1922 of 2024 Mohan Kahar @ Ninku S/o Late Santoshi Kahar, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village-Subhash Chouk, Near Anaya Medical Store, Birgaon, Police Station- Urala, District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station-Urala, District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnakar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/01/2026 1 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnakar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent. 2 Today, the matter is listed for hearing on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2 3 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.9.2024 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 168/2019, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Raipur, District Raipur, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Jail Sentence (Rigorous) Fine Default Jail Sentence (Rigorous) 506-II of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) 2 years Rs. 1000/- One month 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) Imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for rest of the natural life. Rs. 2000/- One month 4 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.08.2019, the victim, a minor girl aged about 10 years, lodged a report in Urla Police Station to the effect that, her younger brother was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Raipur due to injury after falling during the Dahi Loot program, for whose care her father had gone to the Hospital at Raipur, for two- three days. She resided with her mother and younger sister at home. During the rainy season their house was not habitable as water used to leak from the roof and as such, her mother used to take her younger sister to her sister-in-law's house to sleep and she used to go to the neighbour i.e. the appellant’s house to sleep for two days. On 25.08.2019 at around 10:00 p.m., she went to the appellant’s house to sleep, where the appellant and his wife and she all three slept in the same bed, the appellant was lying in the middle, the appellant’s wife fell asleep and after falling asleep, on the intervening night of 25-26.08.2019 at around 3 12:30 a.m., the appellant took off her jeans, T-shirt and undergarment and after taking off his clothes also put his genitals in her private part and kept moving his genitals in and out and was also pressing her chest, when she tried to scream, the appellant gagged her mouth. After this, the appellant threatened the victim not to tell anyone otherwise he would kill her with a knife and throw her in the pond. The appellant’s wife was sleeping next to him, but she did not come to know, because the appellant covered her completely with a sheet and did bad things with her. At around 6:30 a.m., she went home and told her elder mother about the incident and also said she was experiencing severe pain in her private part. Based on the victim's report, an FIR (Exhibit P/1) was registered at Urla Police Station under Crime No. 394/2019 for the offences under sections 376, 506 of the IPC, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 5 During the investigation, a site map (Exhibit P/03) and a Patwari map (Exhibit P/9) of the incident were prepared. Regarding the victim's date of birth, the victim's original Class 1 progress report (Article A) was seized as per seizure memo (Exhibit P/7). According to seizure memo (Exhibit P/13) the original admission/discharge register (Exhibit P/12) and its attested copy (Exhibit P/12C) were seized. For an examination of the victim's genitals, consent was obtained from the victim and her mother as per Exhibit P/2 and P/6, respectively. According to Exhibit P/4 and P/5, her genitals were examined and the clothing seized from her was examined. According to seizure memo (Exhibit P/8), a dark-colored underwear belonging to the victim was seized, and according to seizure memo (Exhibit P/17), a light catechu-colored underwear belonging to the appellant was seized. The appellant and the clothes seized from him were examined as per Exhibit P/10 and P/11, respectively. The 4 appellant’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The appellant was arrested vide Exhibit P/24. As per Exhibit P/21, the seized articles were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rfaipur for examination, the receipt of which is Exhibit P/22 and the FSL report is Exhibit P/23. 6 During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after other necessary investigation proceedings, a charge sheet was presented before the learned trial court against the appellant under Sections 376(3), 506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 7 Charges were framed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 376 AB, 506 Part II of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which was denied by the appellant and prayed for trial. 8 In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely the victim (PW-1), Dr. Sudha Samuel (PW-2), victim’s mother (PW-3), Dr. Amit Bhagat (PW-4), Damyanti Dubey (PW- 5), Seema Rajput (PW-6), Balram Dhruv (PW-7), victim’s father (PW-8), G.R.Ratre (PW-9) and the victim’s uncle (PW-9) and exhibited as many as 26 Exhibits and one Article. In defence, the appellant examined Durga Kahar and Basanti Kahar as DW-1 and DW-2, respectively. 9 The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the appellant expressed his ignorance to most of the questions and some of them were denied as well. He stated that he was falsely implicated and that he should be acquitted. 5 10 The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 11 Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnakar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and there are omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. There is no eye witness to the incident. All the witnesses are interested witness and as such, the conviction cannot be based upon their testimonies. As per the victim, the wife of the appellant was also sleeping with them and in such condition, it is not possible that the appellant could have raped the victim and the wife of the appellant would not come to know. The entire prosecution story appears to be concocted. There is no reliable material available on record so as to arrive at a finding that the victim was a minor on the date of incident as it is not proved as to on what basis the date of birth of the victim was recorded in the admission/discharge register of the school. No ossification test of the victim has been done in this case. The prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 12 On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the appellant has committed a heinous crime of rape against a minor girl aged about 10 years. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on cogent and sound reasons and the same does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6 14 The victim's mother (PW-3) and the victim's father (PW-8) have made no statement regarding the victim's date of birth or age in their court statements, although the victim's father stated that his daughter/victim would have been 15 years old on 25.07.2023. The victim herself (PW-1) also did not provide her date of birth in her court statement, but her estimated age is recorded as 10 years in her deposition. The victim's mother (PW-3) told her that the police had confiscated the victim's original Class 1 progress report (Article A) which was confirmed by Sub- Inspector G.R. Ratre (PW-9) in his court statement. According to the said progress report (Article A), the date of birth of the victim is 23.03.2009 and on calculation from this date of birth, the age of the victim on the date of incident i.e. 25.08.2019 is 10 years 05 months. The Investigating OfÏcer, Sub-Inspector G.R. Ratre (PW-9), stated that the original admission/discharge register (Exhibit P/12) and its attested copy (Exhibit P/12C) of the victim's school were seized, as per the seizure memo (Exhibit P/13) regarding the victim's date of birth. The above facts were not contradicted or invalidated in the cross-examination of this witness, and the Headmaster of the victim's school namely, Damyanti Dubey (PW-5) supported the fact that the police seized the admission/discharge register (Exhibit P/12) and its attested copy (Exhibit P/12C) from her, which recorded the victim's date of birth as 23.03.2009. According to this entry, the victim was admitted to Class 1 on 08.07.2015. This entry indicates that the victim was approximately 6 years and 03 months old at the time of admission to Class 1. As per the above, it appears that the victim has stated her approximate age to be 10 years on the date of her evidence, which is confirmed by the admission/discharge register (Exhibit P/12C). Calculating from this date of birth, the victim's age on 25.08.2019 is 10 years and 05 months. As such, the prosecution has 7 successfully proved that the victim was a minor aged about 10 years on the date of incident. 15 With respect to commission of the offence by the appellant, the victim (PW-1) has in clear and categorical terms stated that on the date of incident, she had gone to the house of the appellant as her father had gone to Hospital as her brother was injured and her mother had gone to Manju Bhabhi’s house as their house used to leak during on rainy days, and there was no place for them to sleep. While the victim was sleeping with appellant and his wife-Soniya, the appellant disrobed the victim inserted his penis into the mouth of the appellant and also threatened that if she informed about the incident to anyone, she would be done to death. She further stated that the appellant had groped her breast (chest). On the next day, she disclosed the incident to her elder mother who in turn informed to one Durga Chachi. Thereafter, they all went to lodge the FIR. 16 The mother of the victim (PW-3) has deposed that on the next date of incident, the victim informed her at about 6 a.m. that the appellant had committed rape against her after disrobing her. Seema Rajput (PW-6) is the neighbour of the appellant and the victim. She stated as on the date of incident, it was raining and the victim had no place to sleep , the wife of the appellant took the victim to her home. On the next day, the victim informed her that she was having pain in her private part and when enquired by this witness, she informed that the appellant had raped her. Thereafter, they all went to lodge the FIR. Similarly, the father of the victim (PW-8) has also deposed that while he was in the Hospital at Raipur, her wife informed that their daughter has been raped. 8 17 The appellant was examined by Dr. Amit Bhagat (PW-4), who found him capable of performing sexual intercourse vide his report Exhibit P/10. Dr. Sudha Samuel (PW-2) conducted the MLC of the victim and vide her report (Exhibit P/4) found the hymen of the victim old torn. She did not find any injuries either externally or internally and she prepared vaginal slides and examined the undergarment brought by the police and the said undergarment contained stains on it and after examination she handed over the undergarment of the victim to the police for FSL examination. In her report, she opined that signs of recent intercourse were not present and that no definite opinion could be given in this respect. 18 In the FSL report (Exhibit P/23), human sperms and semen has been found in Article A and C, which are underwear of the victim and the appellant, respectively which goes to suggest that the appellant had committed rape upon the victim. The appellant has not been able to give any explanation as to how semen stains or sperms came to be found on his own underwear and the underwear of the victim. Further, the appellant has not been able to explain as to why the victim would falsely implicate him in an offence like the present one. The deposition made by the victim against the appellant is clear and unambiguous. 19 In the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573, the Supreme Court observed and held that that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. 20 In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, {(2019) 11 SCC 575}, it was observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, 9 conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It was further observed and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 21 In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, {(2018) 18 SCC 34}, the Supreme Court observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difÏculty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. 22 Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and as observed herein above, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the victim. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the appellant even relying upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 23 From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual 10 error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/ convict. 24 Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 25 The appellant is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence as has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 26 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentences to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 27 Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.01.30 15:23:19 +0530