1 CGHC010173042022 2026:CGHC:35903-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 860 of 2022 Hardayal S/o Kishun Mahto, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Barpani, Chirubeda, P.S. And District Simdega (Jharkhand) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O6cer, Out Post Araa, P.S. Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/08/2026 1 Heard Ms. Reena Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent. 2 Challenge in this appeal :led under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur / Additional Charge, FTC Jashpur, District Jashpur, in Special POCSO Case No. 38/2019 by which the appellant has been BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.19 10:53:45 +0530 2 convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Jail Sentence (Rigorous) Fine Default Jail Sentence (Rig- orous) 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) 3 Years Rs. 100/- 1 Day 366A of the IPC 7 Years Rs. 100/- 1 Day 376(2)(f) of the IPC For Life Rs. 500/- 7 Days All the sentences to run concurrently. 3 Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the year 2012, after the victim (PW-1) had studied up to Class VI, in the month of March she had gone to the forest to collect :rewood. At that time, she came into contact with Budhram Singh and Hardayal, who were members of the P.L.F.I. Naxalite group. Hardayal, by enticing her with the promise of marrying her and keeping her as his wife, took her away to the forest and kept her there. During this period, for about three months, Hardayal had physical relations with her. When the Jharkhand Police caught Hardayal from Khajurdih forest and took him away, she returned to her home. During the same period, as the Mangal Nagesia group of the Janhit Kranti Party used to visit her village, she came into contact with a group member named Dinesh. They enticed the victim by oBering her money and, by alluring and inducing her, took her along with them to the forests of Katasaru Korapani, Kastumba and Chiyarikani. Dinesh continued to have physical relations with her by promising to keep her with him as his wife. In October 2014, Mangal Nagesia was shot dead in the forest area of Palkot by the Maoist Khudimunda Commander Group. Thereafter, the Group Commander Khudimunda forcibly took the victim into his group and kept her in the forests falling within the jurisdiction of Palkot and Raidih Police Stations. A group member named Sagar had physical 3 relations with the victim for about one year. When the Khudimunda group came and stayed at village Katasaru, at about 8–9:00 p.m. at night, the victim, carrying one 315-bore riDe and four cartridges belonging to the party, escaped from Katasaru on the pretext of going to the toilet and came to Police Outpost Ara. On 17.12.2015, she surrendered before the Superintendent of Police, Jashpur, and informed him about the incident. On the basis of her information, Crime No. 343/15 was registered at Police Station Kotwali against accused Hardayal, Sagar, Dinesh, Budhram Singh, Mangal Nagesia and Khudimunda under Sections 363, 366A, 376 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OBences Act, 2012, (for short, the POCSO Act) and the First Information Report (Exhibit P/1) was recorded. The victim was medically examined by a female Doctor, and eBorts were made to trace the accused persons. During the investigation, it was found that Mangal Nagesia had died. The other accused persons, namely Sagar, Dinesh, Budhram and Khudimunda, were found to be absconding from their known addresses. 4 Accused Hardayal alias Kishun Mahto had been convicted by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shri M.K. Verma, in Simdega Crime No. 77/13, G.R. No. 258/13, under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section 414 of the IPC. He had also been convicted in relation to an oBence registered at Simdega Police Station bearing Crime No. 28/13, in Sessions Case No. 4/14, G.R. No. 92/13, under Sections 302, 379 and 411 of the IPC, Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and Sections 17(I) (II) of the C.L.A. Act by the Court of learned District and A.S.J. Simdega, Jharkhand, and was con:ned in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4 5 Upon receiving information from the Jail Superintendent, Simdega, Jharkhand, a production warrant was obtained from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur, on 22.08.2019. In pursuance of the production warrant, appellant Hardayal @ Guddu was brought from Central Jail, Ranchi, on 17.09.2019 and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur. On the same date, permission was obtained to arrest appellant Hardayal in connection with Jashpur Police Station Crime No. 343/15. He was accordingly arrested, and his :rst remand was obtained on the same date, whereafter the investigation was carried out. During the investigation, as no de:nite whereabouts of accused Sagar could be ascertained, his name was deleted with the permission of the Superintendent of Police. As the whereabouts of accused Dinesh, Budhram and Khudimunda could not be ascertained, information regarding their movable and immovable properties was obtained. Since Mangal Nagesia had died, after carrying out the necessary investigation, accused Dinesh, Budhram and Khudimunda were shown as absconding, and the charge-sheet was submitted on 29.10.2019 against appellant Hardayal @ Kishun Mahto. 6 On the basis of the charge-sheet presented in the case, charges against appellant under Sections 363, 366, 366A, 376(2)(i) and (n) and 376(2)(f) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were framed, read over and explained to him upon which the appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. He claimed himself to be innocent and that he had been falsely implicated. However, when asked regarding defence evidence, he stated that he did not wish to adduce any evidence in his defence. 7 In support of its case, the prosecution examined a total of 16 witnesses, namely the victim (PW-1), Sarveshwar Ram (PW-2), Meena Singh 5 (PW-3), Dr. U.P.Bhagat (PW-4), Arun Kumar Minj (PW-5), Baijanti Kindo (PW-6), Birendra Verma (PW-7), Tekram Sarthi (PW-8), Komal Tigga (PW-9), Dr. Usha Lakda (PW-10), Gaureti Minj (PW-11), Dharmu Singh (PW-12) and Rameshwar (PW-13) and exhibited as many as 36 exhibits. One court witness namely T.R.Sarthi (CW-1) was also examined. 8 The appellant was examined under Sections 313 of the Cr.P.C. In his examination, the appellant expressed ignorance to most of the questions and some of them were denied as well. He pleaded innocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. 9 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. 10 Ms. Reena Singh, 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. As per the prosecution, the incident of sexual exploitation occurred in the year 2012 and the FIR (Exhibit P/1) was lodged in the the month of December, 2015 for which there is no explanation for such delay. 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. There is no direct evidence against the appellant and the chain of circumstances has not been proved successfully by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was a minor on the 6 date of the alleged incident. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; however, the learned trial Court has overlooked the material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that the evidence of the 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, she prays that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges. 11 On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, 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 other materials available on record. The alleged contradictions, omissions and discrepancies pointed out by the appellant are minor and natural in nature, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case and do not aBect its credibility. 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 7 principles governing criminal jurisprudence. The prosecution has proved all the essential 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 a6rmed. 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 The victim, (PW-1), has deposed that the incident was of the year 2013- 14 and, at that time, her age was 12 years. At that time, appellant, Budhram and many other persons had come to her village and had taken her away from her house. At that time, appellant, Budhram and the persons accompanying them had said that if she did not go, they would kill her. The appellant took her away saying that he would make her his wife. Those persons took her into the forest and kept her there for many days. At that time, appellant used to forcibly have physical relations with her. When, at that time, in the forest, she refused to have physical relations, appellant assaulted her. Mangal Nageshia also used to have physical relations with her in the forest. Khudimunda had killed Mangal Nageshia and Khudi Munda had taken her with him up to Jharkhand. There were many persons with Khudi Munda. When Khudi Munda used to assault her, she ran away and came to Police Outpost Ara and surrendered herself, and got the FIR (Exhibit P-1), recorded at Police Station Jashpur. The statement of this witness is partially supported by the victim's uncle (PW-2), who stated that, since the victim's mother had died when the victim was a child, the victim had stayed with him and 8 studied up to Class VI. Thereafter, the victim went and stayed with her father in her native village. Later, he came to know that the victim had gone towards the forest and was staying with the Naxalites and later she had surrendered before the police. The statements of victim (PW-1) is supported by the Assistant Sub Inspector, Virendra Verma (PW-7), who stated that on 18.12.2015, when the victim gave an oral complaint at Police Station City Kotwali stating that, for the preceding one year, the accused persons had been forcibly having physical relations with her in the forests falling within Gram Palkot and Raigarh Police Station area, he registered Crime No. 343/15 against the accused persons under Sections 363, 366, 376, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and recorded the FIR (Exhibit P/1). The statements of victim (PW-1) and Virendra Verma (P.W.-7, are con:rmed by Exhibit P-1. This fact remained unshaken in cross-examination. The victim's uncle, (PW- 2), admitted in his cross-examination that he had seen the victim at the Police Station only after she had surrendered. The victim (PW-1) admitted in her cross-examination that she had been given weapons by the Naxalite group, which establishes that the victim escaped from the forest from the Naxalite group and came to Police Outpost Ara and surrendered herself along with the weapon, and got Exhibit P-1, the FIR registered. 14 Tekram Sarathi, PW-8 deposed that on 25.10.2019, he gave an application, Exhibit P-26, to the Headmaster for providing the victim's admission/discharge register. The statement of this witness is supported by Dharmu Singh, P.W.-12. The statements of these witnesses are con:rmed by the application (Exhibit P-26) given for providing the admission/discharge register. Tekram Sarathi (PW-8) has stated that when the Headmaster Dharmu Singh (PW-12) produced at 11:30 a.m. on 9 25.10.2019, the victim's admission/discharge in which her date of birth was mentioned as 22.06.2001 and Admission No. 174 dated 17.07.2007. The same was seized in the presence of witnesses Jageshwar Ram and Rajendra Ram as per Exhibit P-27. This witness's statement is supported by Dharmu Ram (PW-12). 15 In the seizure memo (Exhibit P-27) and the admission/discharge register (Exhibit P-20), the victim's date of birth is 22.06.2001. Victim (PW-1) stated that the incident was of the year 2013-14 and that, at that time, her age was 12 years. When the victim's uncle (PW-2) was asked questions in cross-examination by the prosecution, he admitted that during the summer vacation of the year 2012, the victim had gone from his house to her own house. In the FIR also, the period of the incident is stated to be from March 2012 continuously until the report was lodged. From this fact, it is clear that the incident was of March 2012. The report of the incident was made on 18.12.2015. At that time, in all the prosecution documents, the victim's age was mentioned as 14 years and 06 months. The incident was of March 2012 and her date of birth in the victim's admission/discharge register was mentioned as 22.06.2001. 16 The deposition of the victim's father, (PW-13) was recorded on 04.04.2022, and in his evidence he stated that the victim's age at that point of time was approximately 20 years. Accordingly, the victim was 10-11 years old at the time of the incident. Dharmu Singh (PW-12) , admitted in his cross-examination that he could not state on what basis the date of birth of the victim had been entered by her parents. This witness, in cross-examination, has accepted the suggestion that ordinarily, at the time of school admission of small children, teachers enter their dates of birth on the basis of their experience and estimation. The admission/discharge (Exhibit P-11) is a relevant entry made in the 10 discharge of o6cial duty under Section 35 and is a public document under Sections 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act, which has been certi:ed by Headmaster Dharmu Singh (PW-12). The incident was of March 2012 and, on the basis of the victim's date of birth, 22.06.2001, mentioned in the admission/discharge register, on 01.03.2012, at the time of the incident, the victim's age was 10 years, 08 months and 08 days, and she was a minor girl below 12 years of age. 17 Dr. Usha Ladka (PW-10) has stated that on 18.12.2015, an application, Exhibit P-33, was given by the SHO, PS City Kotwali, Jashpur, to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jashpur, for conducting the physical examination of the victim. In the letter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jashpur, permitted the examination by a female Doctor on the basis of the consent of the victim and her parents. Victim (PW-1) also stated that the Police had got her medically examined and that she had given her consent (Exhibit P-2). In Exhibit P-33 itself, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, granted permission for examination by a female doctor on the basis of the consent of the victim and her parents. This establishes that permission was obtained from the Sub- Divisional Magistrate for conducting the medical examination of the victim, consent was obtained from the victim, and she was examined by a female doctor. 18 Dr. Usha Ladka (PW-10) has stated that on 18.12.2015 at 5:30 p.m., when the Lady Constable Meena Singh, No. 338, of Police Station Jashpur brought the victim for examination, she examined her. On external examination of the victim, her secondary sexual characteristics were partially developed. Axillary hair was not present. Pubic hair was present. The breasts were swollen. The areola and nipple were underdeveloped. There was no other injury on the external parts of her 11 body. On internal examination, her perineum was normal. Her labia majora and labia minora were normal. The hymen was torn at the 1:00, 5:00 and 7:00 o'clock positions. White discharge was present in her vagina. The vagina was dilated. The cervical os was closed. In her opinion, sexual intercourse had taken place with her. She advised a urine test and abdominal sonography of the victim (Exhibit P-34). This witness admitted in her cross-examination that no signs of recent sexual intercourse were found on the victim, which establishes that recent sexual intercourse had not taken place with the victim. 19 Tekram Sarathi (PW-8) deposed that he gave an application (Exhibit P- 22) to the Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Jashpur, for conducting the potency test of appellant and for being informed of the result. Doctor U.P.Bhagat (PW-4) examined the appellant and found that his secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed and that cremasteric reDex was present in the testicles. He was capable of performing sexual intercourse, and the doctor gave report (Exhibit P-3). 20 According to the prosecution, the incident was in March 2012. According to victim P.W.-01, initially appellant, Budhram and many other persons came to the victim's village and took her away from her house. Appellant took her to the forest saying that he would make her his wife, kept her there for many days and forcibly had physical relations with her. According to the prosecution, thereafter Dinesh and Sagar also had physical relations/committed rape with the victim, which makes it clear that in the year 2012, the appellant was the :rst to have physical relations with the victim. After the victim escaped from the group and surrendered at the Police Station on 17.12.2015, her medical examination was conducted on 18.12.2015. 21 The victim (PW-1) has clearly deposed that the appellant used to forcibly 12 have physical relations with her. The victim also clearly stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that appellant forcibly had physical relations with her. This establishes that appellant was the :rst person to have physical relations with the victim. The victim has stated that at the time of the incident, she was 12 years old and that, at that time, appellant, Budhram and many other persons came to her village and took her away from her house. This establishes that at the time of the incident, the victim was below 18 years of age and that she was taken away by appellant and his associates without the consent of her lawful guardian, namely, her father/uncle, and was kidnapped. The victim stated that appellant, Budhram and many other persons came to her village, took her away from her house, and appellant took her away saying that he would make her his wife and forcibly had physical relations with her in the forest. When she refused to have physical relations, appellant assaulted her. From her deposition, it is clear that the appellant compelled the victim to submit to sexual intercourse and took her away from her house. 22 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. 23 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 victim should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 13 24 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 di6culty 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. 25 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 would falsely implicate him in a case of such nature. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the appellant even relying upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. We are inclined to endorse the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court. 26 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 awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 14 27 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. 28 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 Brijmohan