1 2026:CGHC:890-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1913 of 2022  Sundar Sahani S/o Nanki Sahani Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Motipur, Rasra, District - Samstipur (Bihar) At Present R/o Shyam Plant Quarter, Taraimal, Village , Post And Police Station Punjipathra, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Punjipathra, District - Raigarh (C.G.). ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate, appears as Amicus Curiae. For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl AG. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.01.2026 2 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.01.2020 passed by learned Session Judge, Gharghoda, Distt- Raigarh, CG, in Special Criminal (POCSO) Case No.5/2019, whereby appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years & fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month additional RI. Under Section 376AB of the IPC. Life imprisonment till natural death and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional RI. Both sentence run concurrently 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that complainant/father of victim made a oral report before the concerned Police Station that on 19.01.2019 at about 1:30 p.m., his minor daughter/victim (P.W.-1) was playing outside the house and, thereafter, went missing from there. Complainant further alleged that while making inquiries in nearby area, one Pramesh Sahu (resident of colony) informed him that a boy aged about 18–19 years, wearing a red T-shirt and slippers, was taking the victim in his lap. Based upon said report/information, Crime No.14/2019 was registered under 3 Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code against an unknown person and the First Information Report was duly recorded (Exhibit P-2) and, subsequently, the Police has conducted an inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared the spot map (Exhibit P-3). During search for the victim, victim was recovered in a naked condition from the forest area situated behind Radheshyam Petrol Pump, Taraimal, in the presence of witnesses and a recovery panchnama was prepared accordingly as Exhibit P-4. Upon further search at the said place, the accused was also found there, who was identified by Pramesh Sahu and an identification panchnama of the accused was prepared as Exhibit P-7 and appellant has been arrested for the alleged offence/crime. 3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 08 witnesses. Statement 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, appellant has not examined any witnesses in his defence. 4 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record as same has been passed solely based on the conjecture and surmises. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged against him, he has falsely implicated in the case. Prosecution has failed to produce any admissible evidence which connects the appellant in the alleged crime/offence. There are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the victim and other prosecution witnesses, which are not considered properly by learned trial Court. Trial Court also ignored the fact that medical report of prosecutrix/victim does not support the prosecution case. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment and submits that on 19.01.2019, appellant came near to the minor prosecutrix (aged about 5 only 03 years and 06 months) and given her Bada for eating and taken her in the forest and tied her both hands and legs in tree by the rope and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and, thereafter, left her there. Medical report of the victim and all the prosecution witnesses are supported the case of prosecution. Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record placed on record. 9. Question/issue arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether testimony of the victim/prosecutrix deserves acceptance and whether prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 10. On being asked, PW-1/Prosecutrix in her Court evidence stated that she knows the appellant; he (appellant) gave her Bada for eating and took her in the forest and removed her bottom clothes and himself too. On further being asked, victim stated that he (appellant) tied her both hands and legs by the rope and committed sexual intercourse with her. 11. PW-4/Pramesh Sahu in his Court evidence has stated he knows the appellant/accused since the date of the incident; 6 victim was residing in his colony, so he knew her as well. On 19 th January, 2019 at 12:30 p.m., when he was standing in front of his house, he saw the accused carrying the victim in his lap and passing his house, to which, he asked the accused, ‘where are you taking the victim’, he replied, "No, sir, I am going right here." and, thereafter, accused took the victim to the family colony. On that date, at about 1:30 PM, he was at home when the victim's mother and other neighbors were searching for the victim and they asked him that had he seen her, to which, he told them that he had seen a boy carrying the victim in his arms. Thereafter, the Police came to him on motorcycle and took him towards the forest behind our colony to search for victim and accused, at that relevant point of time, the police received a call that accused and the victim had been found. On that date, when the police called me to identify the accused, he went to the Banjari Temple and identified that he (accused) was the same boy who was carrying the victim. 12. PW-2/father of victim in his Court evidence has stated that on the date of the incident, he received a call from his wife informing that the victim was not at home, to which, he came to house and went alongwith one of his brother to search for the victim in his neighborhood; at that time one Pramesh, who lives in his colony, told that he saw a boy 7 (aged about 19-20 years) carrying the victim in his lap around 1:30 pm, to which, he (PW-2) went to the concerned Police Station and made report regarding the victim's kidnapping (Exhibit P-2) and, thereafter, he alongwith Police officers and PW-4/Pramesh went to forest to search for the victim and they saw the victim lying near a Mahua tree in a naked condition and crying, the police then recovered her from there. 13. PW-3/mother of victim in her Court evidence has stated that on 19.01.2019, victim was playing near the water tank near the house. She sent her elder son to call for the victim for dinner, to which, he came and told that the victim was there and, thereafter, she searched for her daughter and called the colony members and her husband and informed them about missing of victim. She (PW-3) further stated that while his husband and other were searching for the victim, one Pramesh (who lives in a same colony) stated that he saw a boy wearing a red T-shirt carrying the victim in a lap and took her to the forest. 14. PW-6/Dr. Savitri Toppo (Medical Officer) in her evidence has stated that on 19.01.2019 at night about 09:00 pm she examined the victim and found that she had two abrasions on left side of her nose, measuring 0.5 x 0.1 cm and 0.3 x 8 0.2 cm; she had also 3-4 dark red and brown abrasions on her back. She further stated that after examination of private part of the victim and going through the injuries sustained by her it is clear that she had been forcibly sexually assaulted/exploited. Victim's medical examination report is Exhibit P-6. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 745, dealt with a similar issue in case of a child rape and while upholding the conviction of the appellant therein and reversing the decision of the High Court in that behalf, relied upon earlier decisions and made the following observations: "13. The conviction for offence under Section 376 IPC can be based on the sole testimony of a rape victim is a well-settled proposition. In State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC384], referring to State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash Kewalchand Jain [(1990) 1 SCC 550] this Court held that it must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. It has also been observed in the said decision by Dr Justice A.S. Anand (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Court that the inherent bashfulness 9 of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases 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 a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. 14. In State of H.P. Vs. Gian Chand[(2001) 6 SCC] Justice Lahoti speaking for the Bench observed that the court has first to assess the trustworthy intention of the evidence adduced and available on record. If the court finds the evidence adduced worthy of being relied on, then the testimony has to be accepted and acted on though there may be other witnesses available who could have been examined but were not examined." 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shivasharanappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 observed as under: “17. Thus, it is well settled in law that the court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record. Needless to say as a rule of prudence, the court thinks it desirable to 10 see the corroboration from other reliable evidence placed on record. The principles that apply for placing reliance on the solitary statement of the witness, namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack of corroboration, apply to a child witness who is competent and whose version is reliable.” 17. It is pertinent to observe that the question whether conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault/rape is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in a catena of judgments and has held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if found reliable can be the sole ground for convicting the accused and that the creditworthy testimony of the victim in cases of such nature deserves acceptance. 18. Insofar as, age of the victim on the date of the commission of the offence is concerned, she was admittedly 03 years and 06 months old at the time of the unsavory incident. 19. Upon a careful and holistic appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and above decisions/ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the occurrence and the involvement 11 of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence establishes that minor prosecutrix, aged about 3 years and 6 months, was enticed by accused and taken to a forest area, where she was unlawfully restrained and subjected to sexual assault. Medical evidence duly corroborates the prosecution version and testimonies of prosecution witnesses are consistent, cogent, and trustworthy. Defence has not been able to elicit any material contradiction or circumstance so as to create doubt regarding prosecution case. Hence, the guilt of the accused stands proved. 20. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 21. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment alongwith original records to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail this judgment by preferring an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice J/-