1 CGHC010156922026 2026:CGHC:34482-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1044 of 2026 Uttra Kumar Ratre S/o Amrit Lal Ratre Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Madhaibhatha, Police Station Sarsiwa, District Balouda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O4cer, Police Station Punjipathra, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.R.Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/08/2026 1 Heard Mr. C.R.Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent. 2 Despite service of notice to the mother of the victim (PW-4), none has appeared on her behalf. 3 Today, the matter is listed for hearing on IA No.1/2026, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. 2 However, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard @nally. 4 Challenge in this appeal @led under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, FTSC (POCSO) Gharghoda, District Raigarh, in Special Criminal Case No. 19/2020, by which the appellant has been convicted for the oBence punishable under Section 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual OBences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years with @ne of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of @ne, to undergo further imprisonment for 3 months. 5 Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the mother (PW-4) of the victim appeared at Police Station, Punjipathra, District Raigarh and lodged a written complaint (Exhibit P/1) alleging that on 10.08.2020, the victim had gone to play in the hut of the appellant who was their neighbour. It was alleged that, with the intention of committing rape, the appellant made the victim lie between his thighs, inserted his right hand inside the victim's pants and undergarment, and inserted his @nger into her private part. It was further alleged that the appellant pressed the victim's chest with his left hand while committing the said act. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 165/2020 (Exhibit P/2) was registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh for the oBence punishable under Sections 376(A), 376(B) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and the matter was taken up for investigation. 6 During the course of investigation, on the basis of the written complaint of the victim (Exhibit P-01), the First Information Report (Exhibit P-2) 3 was registered. Thereafter, the Investigating O4cer (PW-7) visited the place of occurrence and prepared the spot map (Exhibit P-3) at the instance of the victim. After obtaining the consent (Exhibit P-4) of the victim's mother (PW-4) for examination of the victim's private parts, the victim was referred to K.G.H. Hospital, Raigarh, for medical examination vide requisition (Exhibit P-5) and the medical examination report (Exhibit P-13) was obtained. The appellant was also referred to the Community Health Centre, Tamnar, for potency examination vide requisition (Exhibit P-7), and the potency examination report (Exhibit P-6) was received. A requisition (Exhibit P-8) was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. A further requisition (Exhibit P-9) was sent to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) for counselling of the victim. For determination of the victim's correct age, a reference (Exhibit P-10) was made to the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. Upon @nding su4cient evidence against the appellant during investigation, he was arrested vide arrest memo (Exhibit P-11), and intimation of his arrest (Exhibit P-12) was furnished to his family members. The Radiologist's report relating to the victim's age (Exhibit P-14) was obtained, and the birth certi@cate of the victim (Exhibit P-15) was procured from the Medical College, Raigarh. Upon completion of the entire investigation, the charge-sheet was @led before the learned trial Court. 7 Charges under Section 376(AB) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were framed against the appellant. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant who denied the same and claimed to be tried. 8 In order to bring home the oBence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesess namely Samarin Nishad (PW-1), Ravindra Jangade 4 (PW-2), the victim (PW-3), victim’s mother (PW-4), Mankunwar Sidar (PW-5), Dr. D.S.Painkra (PW-6), Amit Singh (PW-7), Smt.Ramkumari Patel (PW-8), Amrauteen Kurre (PW-9), and Dr. Deepak Prakash (PW- 10) and exhibited as many as 15 exhibits. 9 The appellant was examined under Sections 313 of the Cr.P.C. In his examination, the appellant pleaded innocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He further expressed that he did not wish to adduce any evidence in defence. 10 The learned trial Judge, after considering the statement of witnesses and evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed in the opening paragraphs of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 11 Mr. C.R.Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/convict submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are contrary to law, facts and the evidence available on record and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. There is no eye witness to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and has recorded the @ndings of guilt on the basis of conjectures and surmises. No internal or external injuries were found on the body of the victim by the Doctor. There is no FSL report which could have conclusively established as to whether any such incident had happened or not. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; however, the learned trial Court has overlooked the material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that the evidence of the 5 prosecution witnesses does not inspire con@dence and suBers from material inconsistencies, which have not been duly considered by the learned Trial Court. The @ndings recorded by the learned Trial Court are thus perverse, being unsupported by the evidence on record and contrary to the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. Hence, he prays that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges. 12 On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are well reasoned, based on proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and do not suBer from any illegality, perversity or in@rmity warranting interference by this Court. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. The learned Trial Court has meticulously analysed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record. The alleged contradictions, omissions and discrepancies pointed out by the appellants are minor and natural in nature, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case and do not aBect its credibility. The appellant has failed to oBer any plausible explanation regarding his presence at the place of occurrence or the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. The @ndings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon a comprehensive and correct appreciation of the entire evidence on record and are in consonance with the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence. The prosecution has proved all the essential 6 ingredients of the oBences beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant has failed to demonstrate any material illegality, misreading of evidence or perversity in the @ndings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court deserve to be a4rmed. 13 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 14 So far as the age of the victim is concerned, according to the prosecution, the victim was aged about 5 years on the date of incident. The mother of the victim (PW-4) has deposed that the date of birth of the victim is 02.10.2015. The Radiologist Dr. Deepak Prakash (PW-10) has opined that the age of the victim was in between 5 to 6 years vide his report Exhibit P/15. The said fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 15 Smarin Nishad (PW-1) is the neighbour of the victim. She has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Though she stated that she had heard the cries of the victim. Similarly, Ravindra Jangde (PW-2) has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. 16 So far as involvement of the appellant in the oBence in question is concerned, the victim (PW-3) who was barely 5 years of age on the date of incident, according to her own understanding, has tried to explain the sequence of events. The deposition of the victim was recorded on 17.08.2023 i.e. after about 3 years of the incident. She has stated that the appellant slept with her and committed wrong acts. In the cross examination, she has clari@ed the wrong acts committed by the appellant that the appellant made her lie between his thighs and was pressing her 7 chest and that he had inserted his hands in her undergarments and thereafter inserted his @nger in her private part. When she screamed, her mother and neighbours came. 17 The mother of the victim (PW-4) deposed that on the date of incident, she had returned from the market when she heard the cries of her daughter. According to this witness, the appellant was touching the chest and private part of the victim. She assaulted the appellant with a stick and took the victim to her house. In cross examination, she has speci@cally deposed that there was no earlier quarrel or dispute with the appellant. 18 Dr. D.S.Paikra is the Medical O4cer, who had examined the appellant and found that the secondary sexual characteristics of the appellant were fully developed and cremasteric reJex was also present. According to his report (Exhibit P/6), the appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. 19 Dr. Amrautin Kurre (PW-9) is the Medical O4cer who had examined the victim. According to her report (Exhibit P/13), there was no external or internal injuries on the body of the victim and for determination of her age, she had referred to the Radiologist. The victim had informed her that she was feeling pain in her chest and private part. She could not give any de@nite opinion with regard to sexual assault on the victim. 20 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 when the deposition of the victim is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. 21 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 8 corroboration. It was further observed and held that sole testimony of victim should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 22 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 @nd no di4culty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires con@dence 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. 23 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. No explanation has been put forth by the appellant as to why a minor girl aged about merely 5 years would falsely implicate him in the crime in question. 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 @nding 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. 24 For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence as has been 9 awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 25 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence 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. 26 Let a certi@ed 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 Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.08.07 18:28:34 +0530