1 2026:CGHC:26558-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1011 of 2024 Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar S/o Late Pyare Lal Sagar Aged About 40 Years (Third Gender), Resident Of Near Ram Mandir, Chandra Shekhar Lodhi Para, Raipur Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh At Present Resident Of Shitla Para, Mahila Sagar Ward Dani Tola, P.S. Kotwali, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahant Kumar Jayswal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General CRA No. 1390 of 2024 Bharat Tandi S/o. Chitru Tandi Aged About 69 Years R/o. Katabhanji, Dist. - Balangir (Odisha), Present R/o. Tarun Nagar, Lodhipara, P.S.- Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General 2 CRA No. 1170 of 2024 1 - Dayalu Tandi S/o Bhuvanav Tandi Aged About 59 Years R/o Katabhanji, Dist. Balangir (Odisha) Present Address- Shakti Nagar, P.S. - Civil Lines, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bharat Tandi (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 05-09-2024. ---Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) {Cause Title Taken from Case Information System} For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.P.S.Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Mahant Kumar Jayswal, Mr. M.P.S.Bhatia, and Mr. Akhand Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondent. 2. Today, these matters have been listed for hearing on IA No. 1/2024, which are the applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the respective appellants. However, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, these matters are being heard finally. 3. Challenge in these appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {now Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023} is to the judgment of conviction and 3 order of sentence dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Raipur, District Raipur, in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 56/2020, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Default Jail Sentence (Rigorous) Appellant-Dayalu Tandi 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) and Section 5(k)(l)(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) Life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. Rs. 2000/- 4 months Appellant-Bharat Tandi Section 376AB of the IPC and Section 5(k)(l)(m) / 6 of the POCSO Act Life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life Rs. 2000/- 4 months Appellant-Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar Section 376AB (ab) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act Life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life Rs. 2000/- 4 months 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the Superintendent of the Government Girls' Home, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Mrs. Ratna Dubey (PW-2), submitted a written complaint at Police Station Civil Lines along with the counselling reports of the victim dated 10.01.2020, 15.01.2020, and 06.02.2020, and a copy of the order of the Child Welfare Committee, Raipur, stating that the victim, aged 09 years, had been admitted to the institution pursuant to the order dated 08.01.2020 of the Child Welfare Committee, Raipur. After her admission, her counselling was conducted. According to the 4 information received during counselling, an unknown person residing near the drain at Shakti Nagar, Raipur, and a third-gender person near the District Hospital, Raipur, attempted to sexually exploit the girl. Thereupon, on 18.02.2020, Police Station Civil Lines registered First Information Report (Exhibit P-12) against the unknown person and the third-gender person under Section 376AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and took up the offence for investigation. During the course of the investigation, a spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared. A written requisition was sent to the Tehsildar, Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur, for the preparation of a site plan of the place of occurrence. Upon a written requisition being sent to the Principal of the victim's school, the school admission/ discharge register was produced by him. The same was seized in the presence of witnesses, and after comparing its certified copy with the original, the certified copy was annexed to the case record, while the original register was returned on Supurdnama. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. The victim was also counselled before the Child Welfare Committee. The statements of the witnesses were recorded as narrated by them. Seizure proceedings were carried out, and upon it being found during the investigation that the accused persons had committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim and had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her, accused Dayalu Tandi and Bharat Tandi were arrested, and information regarding their arrest was given to their family members. The victim was medically examined, and the clothes of accused Dayalu Tandi and Bharat Tandi were also examined. The victim's vaginal slide and the underwear of accused Dayalu Tandi 5 and Bharat Tandi were seized and sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination, and the report received therefrom was annexed to the case record. Upon completion of the entire investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court against accused Dayalu Tandi and Bharat Tandi under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. As accused, the third-gender person Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar, could not be traced, a charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was prepared and submitted before the learned trial Court. During the course of the trial, the third-gender person Shankar Sagar @ Bijli Sagar was arrested, and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him. 5. Charges were framed against accused Dayalu Tandi and Bharat Tandi under Sections 376AB and 376(2)(j) of the IPC and Sections 5(l), 5(m), 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Charges were also framed against accused Shankar Sagar @ Bijli Sagar under Section 376AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The charges were read over and explained to the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case and to bring home the offence, has examined as many as six witnesses namely the victim (PW-1), Smt. Ratna Dubey (PW-2), school teacher of the victim (PW-3), Dr. Smt. Sonam Deshmukh (PW-4), Smt. Rajnish Ratre (PW-5) and Sub Inspector, P. Anuradha Rao (PW-6) and exhibited as many 43 exhibits. 7. Upon the examination of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellants stated that they were innocent, had been falsely implicated, and did not wish to adduce any evidence in 6 defence. 8. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused as detailed in the opening paragraphs of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals by the appellants/convict. 9. At the outset, Mr. Akhand Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bharat Tandi, submits that the said appellant has expired on 27.12.2025. In support of the said submission, Mr. Akhand has produced a copy of the death certificate of Bharat Tandi, which is taken on record. As such, the appeal {Cr.A. No. 1390/2024} in respect of appellant-Bharat Tandi, stands abated and we proceed to decide the appeals in respect of other two appellants namely Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar and Dayalu Tandi. 10. Mr. M.P.S.Bhatia as well as Mr. Mahant Kumar Jayaswal, learned counsel appearing for the appelants-Dayalu Tandi and Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned trial Court failed to consider that there is no eye witness to the incident. Above all, there is no conclusive proof to hold that the victim was below the age of 12 years on the date of incident as there is no ossification test report. The victim, in the first three counselling, did not name any of the appellants nor disclosed their identity, the Government Girls Home had no authority to conduct the identification parade, the police did not conduct any test identification parade, above all, there was no injuries found other body of the victim and no semen stains or sperms were found in the clothes/ undergarments of the victim. Hence, the appellants be given the benefit of doubt and they be acquitted of the charges. It is lastly argued by learned counsel for the appellants that 7 the learned trial Court has awarded the sentence of life imprisonment till the remainder of natural life which is too harsh and a lenient view should have been taken by the learned trial Court. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent submits that the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants as above. There are ample evidence on record to hold the conviction of the appellants. The victim being a mentally challenged girl has in a clear and categorical terms has deposed against the appellants and in an offence of such nature, there would hardly be any eye witness or any direct evidence. The appellants have committed a henious offence of rape against a minor girl aged 9 years and that too, who is mentally challenged. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. In this case, neither the victim nor her parents lodged any report regarding the incident. When the victim was kept in the Government Girls' Home and was subjected to several counselling sessions, she disclosed the incident from time to time, whereupon the Superintendent of the Girls' Home lodged a report at the Police Station. 14. So far as the age of the victim is concerned, the prosecution has placed reliance on the documentary evidence, namely, the victim's school admission/discharge register (Exhibit P-15) wherein the victim's date of birth is recorded, as well as the medical examination 8 report and the oral testimony of the other prosecution witnesses, for proving the age of the victim (PW-1). The Investigating Officer, Sub- Inspector P. Anuradha Rao (PW-6), deposed that during the course of the investigation she had issued a written requisition (Exhibit P-13) to the Principal of the victim's school for production of the school admission/discharge register. Pursuant thereto, the admission/ discharge register (Exhibit P-15) and its certified copy (Exhibit P- 15C) were seized and the original register was returned on Supurdnama (Exhibit P-16). The Assistant Teacher of the victim's school (PW-3) deposed that, as per the seizure memo (Exhibit P-14), the police had seized the school admission/discharge register. This witness stated that, as recorded in the school admission/discharge register (Exhibit P-15) and its certified copy (Exhibit P-15C), the victim's date of birth was entered as 01.06.2012, the date of her admission to the school was 27.06.2019, and she was admitted to Class I. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that all the particulars entered in the said register at the time of the victim's admission were based upon the information provided by the Girls' Home. She further admitted that the staff of the Girls' Home had not produced the victim's birth certificate or any other document relating to her age. The victim's parents had not come to the school at the time of her admission. Whatever entry regarding the victim's date of birth was made in the register was made solely on the oral information given by the authorities of the Girls' Home. The Superintendent of the Girls' Home, Mrs. Ratna Dubey (PW-2), deposed that she did not possess any document relating to the victim's age and, therefore, could not state the victim's exact age or date of birth. According to her, the victim appeared to be about 8–9 9 years of age. The victim herself had stated that she was 9 years old. The order passed by the Child Welfare Committee also mentioned her age as 9 years, and it was on that basis that she stated the victim's age to be 9 years. The victim (PW-1), during her testimony before the Court stated that she was 11 years of age. The testimony of the Assistant Teacher of the victim's school and the Superintendent of the Girls' Home, Ratna Dubey (PW-2), confirms that no document relating to the victim's date of birth was available prior to her admission to the school. Therefore, the date of birth of the victim recorded in the school admission/discharge register (Exhibit P- 15) was entered merely on an estimate. Hence, the learned trial Court rightly arrived at a finding that the victim's date of birth recorded as 01.06.2012 in the admission/discharge register was not her actual date of birth. 15. Dr. Sonam Deshmukh (PW-4), who medically examined the victim after the incident, also recorded the victim's age as 9 years in her medical examination report (Exhibit P-17A). In the said report, she noted that the victim's secondary sexual characteristics were not developed according to her age; her breasts were not developed, she had not attained menarche, and her dentition was recorded as 6+6/6+6. In her cross-examination, admitted that she had recorded the victim's age as 9 years in her medical examination report on the basis of the information provided by the doctor of the Girls' Home. She further admitted that, prior to conducting the medical examination, she had not seen any document relating to the victim's age, and that the requisition for medical examination did not contain any request for age determination. She also admitted that she had not conducted an ossification test of the victim. However, she deposed 10 that, on the basis of the examination conducted by her, the victim's age would be less than 12 years. Although no ossification test of the victim was conducted during the investigation and the Investigating Officer did not seek any opinion from the Doctor regarding the victim's age, the medical examination report recorded the physical findings that the victim had not attained menarche, her breasts were not developed, her secondary sexual characteristics had not developed, and her dentition was 6+6/6+6. These medical findings corroborate that the victim was a girl below 12 years of age. 16. The learned trial Judge has rightly observed that the victim was a child who earned her livelihood by begging, and it cannot be expected that such a child would possess or produce a birth certificate or any other document relating to her date of birth. Although the date of birth entered in the school records has not been proved to have any authentic basis, and it is possible that the date of birth recorded in the school admission and withdrawal register is not the victim's actual date of birth, the physical findings recorded in the medical examination report appear to constitute the determinative basis for assessing her age, and those findings have not been rebutted. 17. The Counsellor of the Girls' Home, Mrs. Rajneesh Ratre (PW-5), who conducted the victim's first counselling on 10.01.2020, second counselling on 15.01.2020, and third counselling on 06.02.2020, deposed that during the first counselling dated 10.01.2020, the victim did not disclose any incident or name of any specific person during the interaction with her. However, during the counselling conducted on 15.01.2020, the victim informed her that she was experiencing pain in her breasts. Thereafter, the institution made further inquiry 11 from the victim, in which the victim stated that she had been subjected to sexual exploitation by two elderly men and one third gender person. However, the victim did not disclose the name or address of any such person. The counselling report of the victim dated 15.01.2020 (Exhibit P-23) records that the victim disclosed that some unknown outside elderly persons and certain unidentified third gender person had made attempts to sexually assault and sexually exploit her. It is further recorded that the identity details of the said unknown persons were not known. The counselling report dated 10.01.2020 (Exhibit P-24) does not record any facts relating to the incident as stated by the victim. However, in the counselling report dated 15.01.2020 (Exhibit P-23), it is recorded that the victim stated that an unknown elderly man and a third gender person had made physical advances towards her and attempted to sexually exploit her. Further, in the counselling report dated 06.02.2020 (Exhibit P-22), it is also recorded that the victim stated that a certain elderly man and a third gender person had sexually exploited her, and that the third gender person resides near the District Hospital, Raipur, while the elderly man’s house is near Shakti Nagar drain. Mrs. Rajneesh Ratre (PW-5), who conducted the victim’s counselling, further deposed that when the victim disclosed the incident of her exploitation during the counselling dated 06.02.2020, they went along with the police on 07.02.2020 to the place of occurrence. The witness stated that the victim took them to “Jeevan Complex,” where she pointed out the place where accused Bharat Tandi had committed the offence against her, and also took them to his house and identified the accused. Thereafter, the victim took them to the house of appellant- Dayalu Tandi near Lodhipara Chowk, where the accused was 12 identified. Subsequently, the victim was taken to the house of accused Shankar, where he was not found present. After identification of the place of occurrence, the police advised that, since the matter was outside their territorial jurisdiction, it should be reported to Police Station, Civil Lines. 18. The Superintendent of the Girls’ Home, Mrs. Ratna Dubey (PW-2), deposed that the written complaint (Exhibit P-7) was sent by her to the Police Station on 06.02.2020. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR (Exhibit P-12) was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, against an unknown elderly person and an unknown third- gender person. 19. The deposition made by the victim in the present case is clear and unambiguous. Though the victim is mentally challenged but she was found to have answered the queries made by the learned trial Court in a proper way and as such, her deposition cannot be discarded. She has clearly stated that the appellant-Dayalu Tandi had committed wrong acts against her while she was returning from fair. On the date of incident, the appellant Dayalu asked as to where she was going and he followed her. She was taken to an abandoned place where he caught her breast an tried to commit rape upon her. She has clearly deposed as to how the appellant sexually exploited her. She further states that few days later, the guard of the complex, i.e. the appellant Bharat Tandi also sexually exploited her. With respect to the appellant-Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar, she stated that she was acquainted with the said person who had committed rape upon her. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has clearly named the appellant-Dayalu Tandi, Bharat Tandi and a third gender person and also clearly narrated as to how these three persons 13 exploited her sexually. 20. Dr. Mrs. Sonam Deshmukh (PW-4), in her medical examination report (Exhibit P-17A), recorded that the victim's hymen was torn and healed. The medical examination report also led to the conclusion that the victim was a girl below 12 years of age. In her cross- examination, she deposed that if the hymen had ruptured due to riding a bicycle, there would also have been injuries to the external genitalia, namely the labia majora and labia minora. She denied the suggestion that the hymen of a nine-year-old girl could rupture merely by riding a bicycle or by running. The witness further stated that, in a nine-year-old girl, the hymen is situated internally, and therefore it is not probable for the hymen to rupture as a result of riding a bicycle, running, or similar activities. The said witness has opined that there were signs of penetration present but no sign of recent sexual intercourse could be found and its confirmation would depend upon the chemical analysis of the slides. 21. No reason could be assigned by the appellants as to why the victim, who is a minor girl and is also mentally challenged, would falsely implicate the appellants herein. The victim is a mentally disabled girl below 12 years of age belonging to an impoverished family that survived by begging. In such circumstances, merely because she did not disclose the names of the accused persons during the initial three counselling sessions, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution unless the victim's testimony is otherwise contradicted by other evidence. 22. The victim was admitted to the Girls' Home on 09.01.2020, and her medical examination was conducted on 19.02.2020, that is, approximately one month and ten days after her admission to the 14 Girls' Home. During this intervening period, she would have bathed several times and would have urinated and defecated on multiple occasions. Therefore, where the medical examination of the victim was conducted approximately three and a half months after the incident, the absence of injuries on her body and the non-detection of human sperms in the chemical examination report do not lead to the conclusion that no sexual assault had been committed upon the victim. 23. Further, the medical examination of the victim did not reveal any injuries on her body or genital region. However, where the medical examination was conducted approximately three and a half months after the incident, the absence of injury marks on her body or genitalia does not necessarily imply that no sexual assault had taken place. Medical evidence is corroborative in nature and not substantive evidence. 24. 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. 25. 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, 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. 26. In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, {(2018) 18 SCC 15 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 difficulty 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. 27. 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 accused even relying upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellants are 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. 28. 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 error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict. We uphold the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. 29. So far as the sentence part is concerned, while the gravity of the offence cannot be understated and the victim's dignity and bodily integrity deserve the highest degree of protection, sentencing is 16 required to be proportionate to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. The sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the appellants’ natural life is reserved for cases where the aggravating circumstances are of such exceptional nature as to justify the maximum punishment prescribed by law. Upon an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances on record, we do not find the present case to fall within that category. At the same time, the offence is undoubtedly serious and warrants the imposition of a stringent custodial sentence. 30. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by modifying the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the appellants natural life to rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years. The jail sentence is modified accordingly. The fine imposed by the learned trial Court and the sentence in default of payment thereof shall remain unaltered. 31. The appellants/convicts – Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar and Dayalu Tandi are stated to be in jail. They shall serve out the sentence as modified by this Court in the preceding paragraph. 32. Accordingly, the appeals i.e. Cr.A. No. 1011/2024 and Cr.A. No. 1170/2024 stand partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 33. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the appellants informing him that they are 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 17 Court Legal Services Committee. 34. Let a certified copy of this order 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 Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.07.03 17:07:44 +0530