1 CGHC010139122025 2026:CGHC:27666-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 781 of 2025 Vijay Dubey S/o Late Durgaprasad Dubey Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Amapara Rajim, Ps Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble S hri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J . 06.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. Though the matter is listed today for hearing on I.A. No. 02 of 2026 (application for grant of temporary bail for a period of one month), on the ground that the appellant, who is aged about 55 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 years old and his vision is also being damaged and he needs proper treatment, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 02 stands disposed of. 4. This criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO & Rape Cases) Gariaband District- Gariyaband (C.G.) in POCSO Case No. 20/2023, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 01 month. 5. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant (mother of the victim) appeared in the police station Rajim and filed a complaint by submitting a written application that she is a resident of village Rajim Aamapara Ward No. 01, she lives with her husband and her children, she has an elder son and the date of birth of the younger daughter/victim is 29/09/2007, her daughter/victim is 15 years 06 months 20 days old, her daughter/victim has studied till class 7th, her daughter/victim has a weak mental condition. On 19/04/2023 at about 02:00 pm, her daughter/victim was sent to Lokesh Yadav's grocery shop in the 3 locality to buy some goods, and when she did not return in about 15 to 20 minutes, she went to the shop to look for her daughter, but her daughter/victim was not found there. When her daughter/victim came home at about 02:40 pm, her daughter was crying and was nervous, so she asked what happened, then her daughter/victim told that while she was coming out of Lokesh Yadav's grocery shop after buying some goods, a person named Vijay Dubey who lived near the same shop, caught hold of her daughter/victim's hand and dragged her inside his house and after removing all her clothes and his own clothes, he raped her (sexual intercourse) forcefully on the ground. Then she along with her daughter/victim, husband and son went to the police station and lodged a report. 6. On the basis of the written complaint of the complainant, the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 116/2023 was registered against the accused at Police Station Rajim under Section 376 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the case was taken into investigation. During course of investigation, on production by the complainant, the progress report of the victim for class V was seized in front of witnesses. The victim's underwear was seized in front of witnesses by giving a notice under section 91 of the CrPC to the victim to produce her underwear. For conducting the private part and physical examination of the victim, a consent letter of the victim, the victim's mother and the victim's father was prepared and on the said date itself, a complaint was given to the 4 lady Medical Officer of the District Hospital, Gariaband, for providing the report after examining the private part and physical examination of the victim and the seized underwear. 7. On 20/04/2023, the spot map of the incident was prepared by the police in front of witnesses. The underwear of the accused was seized in front of witnesses. A complaint was lodged with the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Gariaband regarding the underwear and gender test of the accused and a report was obtained. On the same date, the accused was arrested in front of witnesses and his family was informed about the arrest. Two vaginal slides, one vaginal swab and panty belonging to the victim were seized in front of witnesses when female constable No. 302 Bhoj Dhiwar brought them from the hospital in a sealed packet and presented them. The underwear belonging to the accused was seized in front of witnesses when constable No. 161 Bhuneshwar Verma brought them from the hospital in a sealed packet and presented them. On 20/04/2023, a complaint was given to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division, Gariaband, regarding the appointment of a female police officer for the statement of the victim under Section 161 of the CrPC, and the statement of the victim was recorded by the female police officer. For counselling of the victim, a complaint was given to the in-charge Child Welfare Committee, Gariaband, and the victim was counselled. Regarding taking the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC, a complaint was given 5 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Gariaband, and the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the IPC. Regarding providing the dakhil kharij register of the school related to the victim, a complaint was given to the Headmaster, Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Rajim, at the incident site. A complaint was given to the Tehsildar Tehsil Office Rajim regarding providing the Patwari Nazri map. 8. On 22/04/2023, the victim's Dakhil Kharij register was sent to the police along with a letter. On 23/04/2023, a complaint was filed with the Special Court (POCSO), Gariaband, regarding the addition of Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act to the case. On 24/04/2023, a complaint was filed with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Office, Rajim, regarding the victim's caste certificate. 9. On 25/04/2023, when the complainant presented the permanent social status certificate related to the victim, the same was seized in front of witnesses. Action was taken by giving a complaint to the Senior Superintendent Office, Gariaband, for appointing an officer for further investigation by adding Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act in the case. On 17/05/2023, the Dakhil Kharij register related to the victim was seized in front of witnesses. 10. The seized articles were sent to the laboratory for chemical testing through the concerned Superintendent of Police. After the testing, the chemical test report was obtained. Notices were served to the witnesses, the statements of the remaining witnesses and the victim were recorded, and after a thorough 6 investigation, a charge sheet was presented against the accused in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO & Rape Cases) Gariaband District- Gariaband (C.G.) 11. When charges were framed against accused Vijay Dubey under Section 376 of the IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2) (v) of the SC & ST (P. A.) Act and on being read out and explained to him, he denied the offence and claimed trial. 12. The prosecution has examined a total of 20 witnesses in support of its case, including the victim (PW-1), the victim's mother (PW- 2), the victim's father (PW-3), Principal Namdas Lahare (PW-4), Assistant Sub-Inspector Gopal Ram Sahu (PW-5), Dr. Neha Sharma (PW-6), Dr. M.K. Shyam (PW-7), Sub-Inspector Indal Kumar Sahu (PW-8), Chhageshwar Kumar Sahu (PW-9), DSP Nisha Sinha (PW-10), the victim's brother (PW-11), Inspector Suryakant Bhardwaj (PW-12), Shivcharan Yadav (PW-13), the victim's elder mother (PW-14), Sub-Inspector Rameshwari Baghel (PW-15), Acharya Anil Kumar Sahu (PW-16), lady constable Smt. Bhoj Dhiwar (PW-17), constable Rajkumar Sidar (PW-18), constable Bhuneshwar Verma (PW-19) and constable Amit Kumar Jangde (PW-20) have been examined, and the statement of defence witness Narendra Tiwari has been recorded on behalf of the accused party. 13. 13. On examination of accused Vijay Dubey under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he declared himself innocent and that he was falsely 7 implicated, and in his defence, statement of defence witness Narendra Tiwari was made to be recorded on behalf of the accused. 14. The documents produced by the prosecution include consent form of the victim for physical examination of the private parts and genitals of the victim Ex.P.-01, seizure form of the victim's underwear Ex.P.-02, statement given by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.-03, notice given to the victim under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.-04, written complaint form Ex.P.-05, First Information Report Ex.P.-06, spot map of the incident prepared by the police Ex.P.-07. Seizure sheet of class V progress report of the victim Ex.P.-08, seizure sheet of permanent social status certificate of the victim Ex.P.-09, consent sheet of the mother of the victim for conducting private part and physical examination of the victim Ex.P.-10, seizure memo of the underwear of the accused Ex.P.-11, seizure memo of two vaginal slides, one vaginal swab and panty belonging to the victim, brought in a sealed packet from the hospital by lady constable No. 302 Bhoj Dhiwar, Ex.P.-12, seizure memo of underwear belonging to the accused, brought in a sealed packet from the hospital by constable No. 161 Bhuneshwar Verma, Ex.P.-13, arrest memo of the accused Ex.P.-14, notice issued to the victim's father and witness Mahesh Chelak under section 160 of the IPC Ex.P.-15, consent memo of the victim's father for conducting physical examination of the victim's private parts Ex.P.-16, complaint given 8 to the Headmaster Saraswati Shishu Mandir Rajim regarding providing admission affidavit register related to the school of the victim. Ex.P.-17, Seizure memo of Dakhil Kharij Register related to the victim Ex.P.-18, letter given by Principal Saraswati Shishu Mandir Rajim to the Station Incharge regarding providing Dakhil Kharij register related to the victim Ex.P.-19, test report given by the doctor after physical and private part examination of the victim Ex.P.-20. 15. The documents produced by the prosecution also include memo Ex.P.21A given to the lady medical officer, District Hospital, Gariaband, regarding examination of the private parts and physical examination of the victim and the underwear seized from the victim and submitting the report, Report Ex.P.21 given by the doctor after examination of the private parts and physical examination of the victim, memo Ex.P.22A given to the medical officer, District Hospital, Gariaband, regarding examination of the underwear and genitals of the accused, Report Ex.P.22 given by the doctor after examination of the private parts of the accused, intimation given to family of the accused regarding his arrest Ex.P-23, memo Ex.P.24 given to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division, Gariaband, regarding appointment of lady police officer to record the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC, memo Ex.P.25 given to the Child Welfare Committee, District Gariaband, in-charge, for conducting the case-judging of the victim. In relation to recording 9 the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC, memo Ex.P.-26 was given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariaband. Memo Ex.P-27 given to the Court of POCSO, Gariaband for further investigation by adding Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act in the case. In relation to appointing an officer for the same, memo Ex.P.-28 was given to the Office of Senior Superintendent of Police, District Gariaband, in relation to the caste certificate of the victim, memo Ex.P.-29 was given to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Office, Rajim, District Gariaband, in relation to the caste certificate of the victim, memo Ex.P.-30 was given to the Tehsildar, Rajim, in relation to providing the Patwari Sightseeing Map of the inside room of the house of the accused Vijay Dubey at the incident spot. 16. 16. The documents which have been produced by the prosecution also include memo Ex.P.-31 given to the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for getting the seized exhibits chemically tested, Ex.P.-32 receipt of exhibit from the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for getting the seized exhibits chemically tested, Original progress card of class V of the victim Article-01, Permanent Social Status Certificate of the victim Article-02, Verified copy of admission application form Article-03C, Verified copy of birth certificate Article-04C, Verified copy of admission register Article-05C, Verified copy of pre- primary register Article-06C, F.S.L test report received from the 10 Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for getting the seized exhibits chemically tested, Ex.C-01. 17. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 04 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the present case is a clear case of false implication and the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant without proper appreciation of evidence available on record. It is contended that from the deposition of the victim before the trial Court, it is apparent that the appellant, father of the victim and her brother used to consume liquor together, to which the mother of the victim had repeatedly objected. It is further submitted that the appellant had permitted them to consume liquor at his house, which led to strained relations, and due to such circumstances, the present false case has been instituted against the appellant. It is also submitted that the victim herself has admitted that the FIR was lodged at the instance of her mother. He contended that though serious allegations of rape have been levelled by the victim, but in paragraph 5 of her cross-examination, on being asked about the date, day and year of the incident, the witness said that she does not remember the date, day and year of the incident. Further, on being asked about the date of the incident, the witness said that the earlier statement of two years ago was correct. Though she denied that no incident had happened to her 11 on 19.04.23, but she has specifically admitted two years ago, nothing had happened to her, as such she did not tell her parents or she had lodged report. Further, there is no cogent or objective medical evidence to substantiate the same, thereby creating serious doubt on the prosecution story. 19. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the appellant has been rightly convicted for committing a grave and heinous offence upon a minor girl and no case for suspension of sentence is made out. It is contended that the victim was a minor aged about 15 years, 6 months and 8 days at the time of the incident, which stands duly proved from the documentary evidence available on record. He further submitted that the prosecution evidence clearly establishes that the appellant forcefully dragged the victim into his house and committed rape upon her. The victim has categorically supported the prosecution case in her deposition. It is further submitted that the medical examination reveals that the hymen of the victim was found ruptured. Apart from this, the brother of the victim has also deposed before the trial Court that he had seen the victim coming from the house of the appellant, thereby lending corroboration to the prosecution version. Learned State counsel would further submit that the conviction is based upon cogent and reliable evidence and the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 12 20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully gone through the entire record of the case including the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the defence evidence, as well as the impugned judgment of conviction. 21. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is well settled that in an appeal against conviction, the appellate Court is duty bound to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and arrive at an independent conclusion. While interference with a well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court is not to be made lightly, it is equally settled that where the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is found to be perverse or where material evidence has been ignored or misread, the appellate Court is not only empowered but is under an obligation to correct such error. 22. In cases of sexual offences, it is equally well settled that the testimony of the victim, if found to be cogent, credible and trustworthy, can form the sole basis of conviction without requiring corroboration. However, where the testimony suffers from material inconsistencies, improvements or inherent improbabilities, the Court is required to scrutinize it with greater caution and seek assurance from other evidence on record. 23. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that although the victim's solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offences is generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix's testimony is 13 found unreliable and insufficient due to identified flaws and lacunae. It was held thus: "31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offences. 32. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to get her evidence corroborated independently, which they could have done either by examination of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were present in the house at the time of her alleged abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was not examined and later given up by the public prosecutor on the ground that she has been won over by the appellant." 24. In the present case, the prosecution case rests primarily on the testimony of the victim (PW-1) and the version given by her mother (PW-2). However, on careful scrutiny of the evidence, this Court finds that certain material aspects of the prosecution version do not inspire full confidence. 14 25. The victim, in her cross-examination, has admitted that she does not remember the exact date, day or year of the alleged incident. Though lapse of memory by itself may not be fatal, in the facts of the present case, where the prosecution alleges a specific incident of grave nature, such uncertainty assumes significance while testing the reliability of her version. 26. Further, certain answers given by the victim during cross- examination indicate inconsistencies in her version regarding the occurrence. The defence has also elicited that the First Information Report was lodged on the basis of the statement of the mother of the victim. The possibility of tutoring or embellishment, though not proved conclusively, cannot be completely ruled out in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 27. The defence has also suggested a plausible motive for false implication. It has come in the evidence that there were strained relations between the appellant and the family of the victim on account of consumption of liquor together by the appellant, the father of the victim and her brother, which was objected to by the mother of the victim. While enmity by itself is not a ground for discarding the prosecution case, it is a relevant circumstance which must be considered along with other evidence on record, as it may provide a motive for false implication. 28. The medical evidence on record, though indicative of certain findings, does not by itself conclusively establish the prosecution 15 version in the absence of reliable and consistent ocular evidence. It is well settled that medical evidence is corroborative in nature and where the ocular evidence is doubtful, medical evidence alone cannot form the basis of conviction. 29. The documentary evidence, including seizure memos, forensic reports and other formal documents, establish procedural compliance during investigation. However, these documents, being formal in nature, do not independently establish the commission of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of trustworthy substantive evidence. 30. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that in offences under the POCSO Act, the Court must adopt a sensitive approach. However, such sensitivity cannot dilute the fundamental requirement of criminal law that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction cannot rest on conjectures or assumptions, however grave the allegations may be. 31. From perusal of the deposition of the victim before the trial Court, it is apparent that the appellant, father of the victim and her brother used to consume liquor together, to which the mother of the victim had repeatedly objected. The appellant had permitted them to consume liquor at his house, which led to strained relations and the victim’s father and her brother used to quarrel with the accused/appellant. Further, the victim herself has admitted that the FIR was lodged at the instance of her mother. 16 Though serious allegations of rape have been levelled by the victim, but in paragraph 5 of her cross-examination, on being asked about the date, day and year of the incident, the victim said that she does not remember the date, day and year of the incident. Further, on being asked about the date of the incident, the victim said that the earlier statement of two years ago was correct. Though she denied that no incident had happened to her on 19.04.2023, but she has specifically admitted that two years ago, nothing had happened to her, as such she did not tell her parents or she had lodged report. Further, there is no cogent or objective medical evidence to substantiate the same, thereby creating serious doubt on the prosecution story. 32. Thus, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, this Court finds that certain material aspects of the prosecution case create a reasonable doubt. During her cross-examination, the victim stated that she did not remember the date, day or year of the alleged incident. She further made statements which, according to the defence, are inconsistent with the prosecution version regarding the occurrence. The defence has also relied upon the admitted circumstance that the FIR was lodged at the instance of the victim's mother. These aspects assume significance while appreciating the overall credibility of the prosecution case. 33. It is also noticeable that the defence has suggested a motive for false implication arising out of strained relations between the 17 appellant and the family of the victim. Though the mere existence of previous enmity is not by itself sufficient to discard the prosecution case, it is nevertheless a relevant circumstance which is required to be considered while appreciating the evidence as a whole. 34. The medical evidence, though relevant, is not conclusive either way. It is equally settled that medical evidence is ordinarily corroborative in nature and cannot override reliable ocular evidence. Conversely, where the ocular version itself suffers from material infirmities, the medical evidence by itself cannot fill the gaps in the prosecution case. 35. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The material inconsistencies noticed in the evidence of the victim, read with the other circumstances emerging from the record, create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version. The appellant, therefore, is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 36. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO & Rape Cases), Gariaband, in POCSO Case No. 20/2023 are set aside. 37. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. The appellant 18 is in custody, he shall be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. 38. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment forthwith to the Court concerned for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra