1 2026:CGHC:8059 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 643 of 2021 Ramkumar Yadav S/o Ghanaram Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Deoridih, Pradeep Kirana Dukan Ke Peeche, P.S. Torva, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Torva District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. G.A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard 0nally. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.12.2020, passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 112/2017 by which the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.02.18 17:11:13 +0530 2 Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 363 of the IPC R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which, additional R.I. for three months 366 of the IPC R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which, additional R.I. for three months 6 of the POCSO Act R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which, additional R.I. for 3 months 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on the incident date- 10.09.2017 in the afternoon at about 03.30 pm the complainant went to her neighbor's house. His girl victim was the only one in the house who came after sometime searching for her. The victim cried and told her that accused Ramkumar Yadav took her to his house on the pretext to give her chocolate and laid her on the bed, took of her panties and took o= his paint and took o= her penis and started pouring it in her bathroom path. When the victim started crying due to pain, the accused left her. Whether the complainant saw the genitals of the victim, there was blood coming out and the girl was crying because of fear. Complainant was telling her husband and nearby people about the incident, at the same time accused Ramkumar Yadav ran away after locking his house. The complainant took the victim to the hospital for treatment with the help of 3 neighbor. On receipt of the information regarding the crime from police station Torwa, after reaching the hospital, on the report of complainant dehati nalasi was registered for the o=ence punishable u/s-366(क), 376 of I.P.C. and section-3, 4, 8 of POCSO Act. Thereafter, the First Information Report has been lodged as Crime No. 305/17 by police of Police Station Torwa. During the course of investigation map of the incident places was prepared, statement of prosecutrix was recorded before learned JMFC, Bilaspur, prosecutrix was medically examined, proof of date of birth of prosecutrix was seized and statements of witnesses were recorded. When the case against the accused was found u/s-366 (क), 376 of I.P.C. and section-3, 4, 8 of POCSO Act, the accused was arrested and information of his arrest was given to his wife. On the basis of the entire investigation proceedings and the evidence, the charge sheet No. 305/17 was prepared and 0led for o=ence punishable u/s-366(क), 376 of I.P.C. and section-3, 4, 8 of POCSO Act. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 20 witnesses. Statements of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witnesses has been examined in his defence. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence 4 available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 02.12.2020 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. There is major contradiction in the statement of prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 of CrPC before police and in her Statement before the learned Trial Court during evidence. He further submits that if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, no case for the aforesaid case is made out against the appellant. As such the prosecutrix statement is not reliable as there are many contradictions, omissions and development in her statement, which was not considered properly by the learned trial court. From the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before the police, Magistrate and the Court it reEects that she is not a reliable witness. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the age of the prosecutrix was 6 years at the time of alleged incident, but no authentic documentary proof was 0led in order to show that the prosecutrix was a minor girl on the alleged date. Further trial Court also ignored the fact that nothing has been found in the medical report of victim. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant and 5 therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. Thus, the impugned judgment is per se illegal, contrary to the evidence available on record and deserves to be set aside/ quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 6 years on the date of incident and this fact has been duly proved birth certi0cate by the prosecution by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The act committed by the appellant makes him liable for conviction. Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 10. In order to consider the age of prosecutrix, this Court has to examine the evidence/material placed on record by the prosecution. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the Birth Certi0cate (Ex.P-6) and Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-12), wherein date of birth of prosecutrix is mentioned as 05.07.2011 and which has been proved by the Principal of the School (PW- 11) and father of the prosecutrix (PW-2). That they deposed and proved before the trial Court that in Birth Certi0cate, and Dakhil Kharij, the date of birth is mentioned i.e. 05.07.2011. The Birth Certi0cate and dakhil-kharij register is admissible piece of evidence to determine the age of the prosecutrix. In rebuttal to 6 the said documentary evidence, no such evidence has been presented by the appellant side, which could refute the fact of the date of birth mentioned in the said document. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court at the time of alleged incident, the victim/prosecutrix (PW-3) was aged about 6 years and 2 months at the time of incident and she was undoubtedly minor. 11. Prosecutrix (PW-3) has stated in her deposition that at the time of incident, while she was playing with her friends and her mother was at a neighbor's house, the accused called her, promising to give her chocolate, took her inside his house where no one was present, closed the door, made her sleep, and inserted his 0nger into her urethra, causing bleeding. She then screamed and went to a neighbor's house to tell her mother. 12. (PW-1) mother of the prosecutrix in his evidence deposed that on the date of the incident, she had gone to a neighbor's house. She was playing outside with her friend at approximately 3:30 p.m. Shortly thereafter, the accused called her and took her away. She was crying and bleeding from her urethra. Upon questioning, the accused initially stated that she had fallen and was injured. After being scolded, the accused told her that he would give her a chocolate and took her to his house, laid her on the bed, closed the door, and placed his penis near her urethra. Upon examining her genitals, blood was found. Upon hearing this, neighbors arrived, and the accused locked the 7 house and Eed. Upon calling her husband, the accused reportedly took her to the hospital for treatment about half an hour later 13. After close scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, it is apparent that prosecutrix (PW-3) and her mother (PW-1) in her evidence has stated in categorical terms that it is accused/appellant who took her away for getting chocolate and the accused was forcibly committing the o=ence. Nothing favourable to accused/appellant could be elicited in the cross- examination of prosecutrix and, in fact, she stuck to her version that accused/ appellant had touched her inappropriate manner. Even otherwise, it is settled position of law that conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of prosecutrix. No corroboration as a matter of law needs to be insisted. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573;, the Supreme Court has observed and held 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. Further, the Supreme Court also in the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 34, it is 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 0nd no 8 diJculty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires con0dence and is found to be reliable. 15. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, It is required to be noted that in the present case, the prosecutrix has fully supported the case of the prosecution. She has been consistent right from the very beginning. Nothing has been speci0cally pointed out why the sole testimony of the prosecutrix should not be believed. Even after thorough cross- examination, she has stood by what she has stated and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. This Court see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. The submission on behalf of the accused that no other independent witnesses have been examined and/or supported the case of the prosecution and the conviction on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be sustained is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. The conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained. 16. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly, the evidence with regard to the age of the victim which is less than 12 years and also to the depositions made by the victim as well as her mother who have fully supported the statements of the victim, this Court is of the 9 opinion that there is no doubt that the accused appellant has committed such o=ence with the prosecutrix. No case is made out pointing out perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and rightly recorded the conviction. No interference is called for. The appeal thus deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 17. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti