1 2026:CGHC:6135-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 422 of 2022 Sanjay Nikunj S/o Shambhu Lal Nikunj Aged About 38 Years R/o Nawapara Labji, Police Chowki Manipur, P.S. Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Bouripara, Ambikapur, P.S.- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through-The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station-Gandhinagar (Ambikapur), District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajkamal Singh and Mr. Suryapratap Yaddhveer Singh, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 04.02.2026 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2022 passed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) Ambikapur, MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.02.05 11:03:12 +0530 2 District- Surguja (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No. 05/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 376(3) of the IPC. R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for one year. Under Section 450 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 03 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.02.2020, the mother of the victim submitted a written report at Police Station Gandhinagar, stating that on 31.01.2020, when the victim was alone at home, the informant had gone out to leave her younger daughter with her son at a nearby place. Before leaving, she locked the house from outside. Upon her return, the informant noticed that the outer latch of the door was open and the door was bolted from inside. When she called out, hearing the victim crying from inside, the informant entered the premises and noticed the present accused, a resident of the locality, exiting the house. It was alleged that the accused threatened the informant and fled from the spot. It is further alleged that the victim was found in a distressed condition and her clothes were torn. Upon enquiry, the victim allegedly disclosed that the accused had 3 committed an unlawful act against her. Thereafter, on 05.02.2020, when the husband of the informant returned home and was apprised of the incident, the informant, along with her husband and the victim, approached the police station. On the basis of the said written complaint (Ex.P-01), an FIR (Ex.P-02) was registered in Crime No. 56/2020 under Sections 376, 450 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the matter was taken up for investigation. 3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the spot map (Ex.P-04) on 05.02.2020. Certain articles were seized as per seizure memos Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-10, and information of arrest was duly given to his family member as per procedure. Medical examination of the accused was conducted at the District Hospital, Ambikapur. A requisition was sent to the Tehsildar for preparation of the site map, pursuant to which a map (Ex.P-05) was prepared. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned Magistrate. Information was also sent to the Child Welfare Committee as per law. 4. For determination of age, a requisition was sent to the concerned school authority, and the relevant school records were seized vide Ex.P-08. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination 4 through the Superintendent of Police, and the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P-12) was received. Statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation. 5. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 450 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 6. After cognizance, charges were framed against the accused under the aforesaid sections, which were read over and explained to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations and pleaded false implication due to prior enmity. 7. The accused examined defence evidence, including a school witness, and relied upon certain documents marked as defence exhibits. After conclusion of evidence from both sides, arguments were advanced. 8. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-21). After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in opening para of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2022 is bad in law as well as on facts and is liable to be set aside, as the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction is based on conjectures and surmises. The prosecution story is not supported by any independent or direct eyewitness, and the entire case rests on interested testimony, which suffers from material contradictions and omissions going to the root of the matter. The learned trial Court overlooked the inconsistencies appearing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant. It is further submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive, harsh and wholly disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant, therefore, deserves the benefit of doubt. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the victim (PW-2) has clearly deposed the conduct of the appellant in her statement and the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 6 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 12. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix deserves acceptance and whether the prosecution has established the case of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 13. It is pertinent to observe that the question whether conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault/rape is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in a catena of judgments and has held that the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable can be the sole ground for convicting the accused and that the creditworthy testimony of the victim in cases of such nature deserves acceptance. 14. The next issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the age of the victim on the date of commission of the offence concerned, was below 16 years of age. 15. Regarding the age of the victim, learned counsel for the appellant fairly admits that there is no dispute with regard to the age of the victim, and it is not contested that she was a minor on the date of the incident. The age of the victim has been established in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013 SCC OnLine SC 507) and the procedure prescribed under Section 94 of the 7 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The prosecution relied upon the school records, namely the mutation register (Ex.P-9), which records the date of birth of the victim as 04.11.2006. The said date of birth has been consistently stated by the victim (PW-2) and her parents (PW-1 and PW-4) in their evidence and remained unchallenged in cross-examination. 16. The Headmistress of the school (PW-3) proved the mutation register and the corresponding entries, and the defence failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence to controvert the said record. In view of the unimpeached school record and oral evidence, it stands duly proved that on the date of the incident i.e. 31.01.2020, the victim was aged 13 years, 02 months and 27 days, and was therefore a minor. Accordingly, the finding on the question of age stands proved. 17. The next question for consideration is whether on the date and place of incident, the accused committed house-trespass and an offence of sexual nature against the minor victim aged and also threatened her, thereby committing offences punishable under the IPC and the POCSO Act? 18. The most important witness in the incident are the victim (PW-2) and her mother (PW-1), who is the eyewitness of the case. 19. The victim (PW-02), in her deposition stated that she was acquainted with the accused. She deposed that on 31.01.2020, due to ill health, she was at home while her mother had gone out 8 briefly after locking the house from outside. At about 11:00 a.m., the accused entered the house, bolted the door from inside, and subjected her to acts of force against her will. She further stated that the accused intimidated her with threats and restrained her from raising an alarm. 20. PW-02 further stated that when her mother knocked at the door, she attempted to shout for help, but since the door was bolted from inside, her mother could not enter immediately. Upon her mother climbing over the wall and entering the house, the accused disengaged and fled after issuing threats. The victim thereafter narrated the incident to her parents. After her father returned home, the incident was reported at Police Station Gandhinagar on 05.02.2020. She also proved that her medical examination was conducted after obtaining her consent and that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate. 21. In cross-examination, PW-02 was confronted with her earlier statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. She admitted having given those statements and clarified that her deposition before the Court was consistent with the substance of her earlier version. She categorically denied the defence suggestions that the incident had not occurred, that she was present at school at the relevant time, or that the case was falsely lodged due to any monetary dispute. Despite detailed cross- 9 examination, no material contradiction or omission affecting the core of the prosecution case could be elicited. 22. PW-02 also denied the suggestion that the case was the result of any conspiracy or financial demand. Her testimony remained firm, natural, and trustworthy. 23. The testimony of PW-02 finds substantial corroboration from her mother (PW-01). PW-01 deposed that upon returning home, she found the door bolted from inside and heard her daughter crying. She entered the house by climbing over the wall and saw the accused inside the house while the victim was in a distressed condition. Upon being questioned, the accused fled after issuing threats. The victim immediately disclosed the incident to her. 24. PW-01 further stated that due to fear and shock, the incident was disclosed to her husband after his return, whereafter a written complaint (Ex.P-01) was submitted at the police station, on the basis of which the FIR (Ex.P-02) was registered. She also proved the preparation of the spot map (Ex.P-04) and the recording of statements during investigation. Minor clarifications in cross- examination regarding the physical writing of the complaint do not affect the substance or credibility of the prosecution case. 25. The father of the victim (PW-04) stated that he was away for work at the time of the incident and returned on 05.02.2020, when he was informed in detail about the incident by his wife and daughter. He thereafter accompanied them to the police station, where the 10 written report was lodged. He also proved the arrest of the accused vide Ex.P-10. 26. In cross-examination, PW-04 admitted that he was informed telephonically by his wife but clarified that complete details were disclosed after his return. He denied all suggestions of false implication, monetary demand, or tutoring. His testimony remained consistent and reliable. 27. The brother of the victim (PW-11) stated that on the date of the incident, he returned home upon hearing cries and saw the accused coming out of the house and fleeing. He found his mother and sister inside the house. His evidence firmly establishes the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence and remained unshaken in cross-examination. 28. Vikas Singh (PW-06) stated that he came to know about the incident immediately thereafter and saw the victim in a distressed condition. He corroborated the disclosure made by the victim and her mother. In cross-examination, although suggestions of conspiracy and financial motive were made, the witness categorically denied the same. His testimony supports the immediate disclosure and subsequent conduct of the victim’s family. 29. Dr. Snehlata Tirkey (PW-05) proved the medical examination report of the victim (Ex.P-11). She stated that although no external injuries were found, the hymen was torn. Samples were collected 11 and sent for forensic examination. The FSL report (Ex.P-12) indicated absence of semen and sperm. 30. Dr. Nitesh Karmendra (PW-09) examined the accused and proved report (Ex.P-14), opining that the accused was capable of sexual intercourse. Absence of injuries on the accused does not discredit the prosecution, particularly in view of the nature of the incident and delay in examination. 31. It is well settled that absence of injuries or negative forensic findings are not fatal where the testimony of the victim is cogent and trustworthy, especially when medical examination is conducted after a delay. 32. The Investigating Officers (PW-10 and PW-12) proved the registration of FIR, preparation of spot map, seizure memos, medical referrals, forensic dispatch, arrest of the accused, and filing of the charge-sheet. No material defect affecting the prosecution case was established in their cross-examination. 33. So far as appellant’s contention regarding delay in lodging of FIR is concerned, the FIR was lodged after a delay of five days. However, PW-01, PW-02, PW-04, and PW-11 consistently explained that the delay occurred due to fear arising from threats and the absence of the father from home. Such delay, in offences of this nature involving family honour and intimidation, stands satisfactorily explained and does not create doubt. 12 34. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the 13 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.” 35. In the matter of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 17 SCC 291, in paras 14 and 20, it is observed as under: “14. At the very outset, it has to be stated with authority that the Pocso Act is a gender legislation. This Act has been divided into various chapters and parts therein. Chapter II of the Act titled “Sexual Offences Against Children” is segregated into five parts. Part A of the said Chapter contains two sections, namely, Section 3 and Section 4. Section 3 defines the offence of “Penetrative Sexual Assault” whereas Section 4 lays down the punishment for the said offence. Likewise, Part B of the said Chapter titled “Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault and Punishment therefor” contains two sections, namely, Section 5 and Section 6. The various subsections of Section 5 copiously deal with various situations, circumstances and categories of persons where the offence of penetrative sexual 14 assault would take the character of the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Section 5(k), in particular, while laying emphasis on the mental stability of a child stipulates that where an offender commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, by taking advantage of the child's mental or physical disability, it shall amount to an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.” “20. Speaking about the child, a three Judge Bench in M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N. (1996) 6 SCC 756 “1. … “child is the father of man”. To enable fathering of a valiant and vibrant man, the child must be groomed well in the formative years of his life. He must receive education, acquire knowledge of man and materials and blossom in such an atmosphere that on reaching age, he is found to be a man with a mission, a man who matters so far as the society is concerned.” 36. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.144 OF 2022), decided on 8.2.2022 has held as under:- “10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects and to achieve what has been provided under Article 15 and 39 of the Constitution to protect children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, the POCSO Act, 2012 has been enacted. Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency should 15 be shown to a person who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act. By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure. Children are precious human resources of our country; they are the country’s future. The hope of tomorrow rests on them. But unfortunately, in our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position. There are different modes of her exploitation, including sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. In our view, exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and the society. Therefore, the children and more particularly the girl child deserve full protection and need greater care and protection whether in the urban or rural areas. As observed and held by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, children need special care and protection and, in such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. In the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, it is observed by this Court that a minor who is subjected to sexual abuse needs to be protected even more than a major victim because a major victim 16 being an adult may still be able to withstand the social ostracization and mental harassment meted out by society, but a minor victim will find it difficult to do so. Most crimes against minor victims are not even reported as very often, the perpetrator of the crime is a member of the family of the victim or a close friend. Therefore, the child needs extra protection. Therefore, no leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law.” 37. When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident. Instead, the emphasis is on allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version. In State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar (2004) 8 SCC 153 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:“ “21. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court on facts finds it difficult to accept 17 the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration, as understood in the context of an accomplice, would suffice.” 38. On these lines, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivasharanappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 observed as follows: “17. Thus, it is well settled in law that the court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record. Needless to say as a rule of prudence, the court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from other reliable evidence placed on record. The principles that apply for placing reliance on the solitary statement of the witness, namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack of corroboration, apply to a child witness who is competent and whose version is reliable.” 39. The Supreme court in the matter of State of UP v. Sonu Kushwaha, (2023) 7 SCC 475 has held as under : “12. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6,on its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option 18 but to impose the minimum sentence as done by the Trial Court. When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence. However, we find no such provision in the POCSO Act. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent may have moved ahead in life after undergoing the sentence as modified by the High Court, there is no question of showing any leniency to him. Apart from the fact that the law provides for a minimum sentence, the crime committed by the respondent is very gruesome which calls for very stringent punishment. The impact of the obnoxious act on the mind of the victim/child will be lifelong. The impact is bound to adversely affect the healthy growth of the victim. There is no dispute that the age of the victim was less than twelve years at the time of the incident. Therefore, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court.” 40. Upon a careful and anxious consideration of the entire evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, and after appreciating the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and the respondent-State, this Court finds that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 41. The testimony of the victim (PW-02) is clear, cogent, consistent, and inspires confidence. Her evidence regarding unlawful entry by the accused, commission of acts of sexual nature, use of force, 19 intimidation, and restraint from raising alarm has remained intact despite lengthy and searching cross-examination. No material contradiction or omission touching the core of the prosecution case has been brought on record. 42. The evidence of the victim stands amply corroborated by her mother (PW-01), who is an eyewitness to the immediate aftermath of the incident and who categorically deposed about finding the accused inside the house and the victim in a distressed condition. Her testimony also establishes house-trespass and the conduct of the accused fleeing the spot after issuing threats. 43. The testimonies of the father (PW-04) and brother (PW-11) further lend assurance to the prosecution case. PW-11’s evidence regarding seeing the accused exiting the house at the relevant time firmly establishes the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence. Their evidence remained unshaken in cross- examination. 44. The evidence of PW-06 (Vikas Singh) corroborates the immediate disclosure made by the victim and her mother and supports the natural conduct of the family after the incident. The defence allegations of conspiracy and financial motive have been bald suggestions, unsupported by any cogent evidence. 45. The medical evidence, as proved by PW-05 and PW-09, does not contradict the prosecution version. Merely because no external injuries were found and the forensic report did not detect semen 20 or sperm, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved, particularly when the medical examination was conducted after a delay of five days. It is well settled that absence of injuries or negative forensic findings is not fatal when the testimony of the victim is trustworthy and reliable. 46. The explanation offered by the prosecution for the delay in lodging the FIR has been found to be satisfactory and convincing. The consistent evidence of PW-01, PW-02, PW-04 and PW-11 clearly establishes that the delay occurred due to fear arising from threats extended by the accused and the absence of the father from home. In offences of this nature, such delay does not cast any doubt on the prosecution case. 47. The defence plea regarding the presence of the victim at school on the date of the incident has been thoroughly examined and rightly rejected by the trial Court. The documentary evidence produced in support of the said plea has been found unreliable and tainted, especially in view of the admitted discrepancies, forged signatures, and inconsistencies in the attendance records. 48. The investigation conducted by the police, as proved by PW-10 and PW-12, does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to cause prejudice to the appellant. Minor lapses, if any, do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. 21 49. On the basis of analysis of evidence presented by the prosecution, it is evident that at the time of the incident, the victim was a minor below 16 years of age. It is proved that the victim is a girl child and that the accused, knowing that the victim was a girl child below 16 years of age at the time of the incident, committed the crime of rape, forcible penetration, sexual assault and rape on the girl/victim below 16 years of age. Thus, the said crime of rape, penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl below 16 years of age by the accused falls under the category of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. 50. 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 trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 51. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 52. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the jail term, 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 22 Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet