1 2026:CGHC:16586-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 609 of 2023 Raisingh Netam S/o Kanwal Singh Netam Aged About 22 Years Caste-Gond, R/o Village Parchhipara, Police Station Kundai, District Navrangpur (Odisha). ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Vishrampuri, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/04/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.01.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.), in POCSO Case No. 07 of 2022, arising out of Crime No. 128 of 2021, registered at Police Station VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.13 19:54:01 +0530 2 Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 376 (3) of Indian Penal Code R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- U/s 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- U/s 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- In default of payment of fine one month additional R.I. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 10.12.2021, the mother of the victim (PW-3) lodged a report to the police that the appellant has committed rape upon her minor daughter in the month of March 2021 on the pretext of marriage, by which she conceived pregnancy and she is carrying pregnancy of about 9 months. The police registered the unnumbered FIR (exhibit P-4) against the appellant for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’). She was sent for her medical examination to District Hospital, Kondagaon, where Dr. Dipti Pandey (PW-14) medically examined her and gave report (exhibit P-20). The doctor has opined that the victim is carrying 36 weeks pregnancy and she advised for Gynecological consultation and fetus DNA for paternity text and also advise for x-ray for age determination and radiologist consultation. The numbered FIR (exhibit P-21) was registered against the appellant. Spot map (exhibit P-1) was prepared by the police and spot map prepared by the Patwari is exhibit P-19. With respect to the date of birth and age of the victim, the progress 3 report card of class-4th of the victim has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-3). The school register has also been seized by the police vide seizure memo (exhibit P-16) and after retaining its attested true copy (exhibit P-15C), the original register was returned back to the school. As per the school register, the date of birth of the victim is 17.05.2005. The vaginal slide prepared by the doctor has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-23). The appellant was arrested on 20.12.2021 and he too was sent for his medical examination to Community Health Centre, Vishrampuri, where Dr. Anurag Bharti (PW- 4) medically examined him and gave his report (exhibit P-11) and found the appellant fit for sexual intercourse. The blood sample of the appellant collected by the doctor has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-12) and the blood sample of the newly born female child of the victim has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-13) and the blood sample of the victim has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-14). The said blood samples were sent to State FSL Raipur for its DNA test report, from where DNA report (exhibit P-40) was received and according to the DNA report, the appellant is found to be biological father and the victim is found to be biological mother of the newly born child. The USG report of the victim is exhibit P-51 and the MLC report of the victim is exhibit P-42. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC and statement of the victim under Section 164 of CRPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. 4 3. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 366, 376(3) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances that appears against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in earlier part of this judgment, hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence with respect to the age of the victim that she was minor and less than 18 years of age. The school register produced by the prosecution has not been proved in accordance with law. The victim was the major girl and she on her own will engaged in making consensual physical relation with the appellant as both of them having love affair. The victim has not made any objection and has not protested at the time when they were making physical relation. If the appellant was making physical relation against her will or consent, she 5 would have immediately lodged any report to the police or informed her parents, but she did not do so and remained in relation with the appellant. He would also submit that the DNA report is only an opinion and only on the basis of DNA report it cannot be said that the victim was subjected to rape by the appellant. She was a consensual party with the appellant in physical relation and therefore, no offence as alleged are made out against the appellant and he is entitled for acquittal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that, the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of the victim, who suffered the alleged offence of rape by the appellant and conceived pregnancy. But for minor omissions or contradictions her evidence is duly supported the prosecution’s case and it is not required for any corroboration. The victim has delivered a girl child and in the DNA report, the appellant is found to be biological father of the newly born child of the victim. He would also submit that by the scientific report, it has been proved by the prosecution that the appellant made physical relation with the victim by which she conceived pregnancy and ultimately delivered a child. The victim was minor and less than 18 years of age on the date of incident and the school record has duly been proved. The learned trial Court after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, convicted the appellant, which does not suffer from any irregularity and perversity and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 6 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein above and also gone through the records of the trial court with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question arises for consideration would be the age of the victim, as to whether she was minor on the date of incident and less than 18 years of age or not? 10. The prosecution has relief upon the school register (exhibit P-15C) and the progress report card of class-4th of the victim which has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-3). According to the said documents, the date of birth of the victim is 17.05.2005. the said school register (exhibit P-15C) is sought to be proved by PW-6, who is the headmaster of the school. He stated in his evidence that he is headmaster of the school since 2009 and brought the school register with him. The police had seized the school register vide seizure memo (exhibit P-16) and after retaining its attested true copy (exhibit P-15C), the original register (exhibit P-15) was returned back to him. As per the school register, the date of birth of the victim is 17.05.2005. He stated that he is the author of the school register and made relevant entries in it. In cross-examination, though he admitted that he has not obtained the birth certificate of the victim at the time of her admission in the school, but he admitted that, he obtained signature of her father in the declaration form. He denied that the school register is not in his own handwriting. He made entries in the school register on the basis of list provided from the Anganbadi center. When the author of the school register proved that the basis on which the entries have been made in the school register and the defence could not be able to rebut the 7 evidence that the entries made in the school register is not correct or he made incorrect entry. It cannot be said that a wrong date of birth has been entered in the school register. The said entry was made on 30.06.2011, when she had taken admission in class-1st and there was no imagination that the victim may have suffer with any offence and to show her minor, her date of birth was recorded by reducing the same or incorrect date of birth is being recorded. 11. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down guiding principles for determination of the age of a prosecutrix, wherein it was held that although Rule 12 is strictly applicable for determining the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid statutory provision should also form the basis for determining the age of a child who is a victim of an offence. In our opinion, so far as the issue of minority is concerned, there is hardly any distinction between a child in conflict with law and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our well- considered view, it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules for determining the age of the prosecutrix. The conclusive method for age determination has been provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 12. Under the said provision, the age of the child is to be determined by adopting the first available option out of the multiple alternatives specified in Rule 12(3). If, within the scheme of Rule 12(3), a particular option is expressed in an earlier clause, it shall have overriding effect over the options mentioned in the subsequent clauses. 8 12. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 came into force, and thereafter the procedure for determination of age of children has been provided under Section 94 of the said Act. Under Section 94(2), foremost preference is given to the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate issued by the concerned examination board, if available. In the present case, with respect to the date of birth of the prosecutrix, a certified copy of the mutation register (Exhibit P/15-C), which is part of the record, has been produced and proved, wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 17.05.2005. The contents of the said register have been corroborated by the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.-01). 13. The victim (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that her date of birth is 17.05.2005 and she reaffirmed her date of birth in para 6 of her cross- examination that, her actual date of birth is 17.05.2005. PW-2, father of the victim and PW-3, mother of the victim did not know the date of birth of the victim. However, the age and date of birth of the victim has been proved by the prosecution by the school register (exhibit P-15C) and the evidence of the victim herself. The learned trial Court also considered the evidence available on record and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) and hold that victim was minor and less than 18 years of age on the date of incident, in which we do not find any illegality or perversity. 14. So far as the offence of rape is concerned, we again examined the evidence of the victim (PW-1). She stated in her evidence that when she had gone to work of cutting of Neelgiri trees, the appellant was 9 also come there and he allured her that he is loving her. She too in love with him. The appellant made physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage. He made physical relation with her 3-4 times, by which she conceived pregnancy. When she disclosed her pregnancy to the appellant, he fled away from his house and when despite his search, he could not be found, she lodged a report to the police. In cross-examination, though she admitted that she was in love affair with the appellant, but she gave her consent only when the appellant assured her that he will marry her. When the victim have specifically stated that she gave her consent only when the appellant assured her that he will marry her, it cannot be said that, it was her free consent or consent on her own will, rather it can be said that it was the consent obtained on the pretext of marriage. 15. The appellant has not specifically challenged that the victim was not conceived pregnancy from his side or he is not the biological father of the child born from the victim. The DNA test report (exhibit P-40) proved that the appellant is the biological father of the child born from the victim. The authenticity of the DNA report has also not been challenged by the appellant. The investigating officer (PW-12) Vivek Sengar had obtained permission from the learned trial Court for conducting DNA test of the victim and her child and then on 27.01.2022, the blood sample of the appellant, victim and their newly born child were collected by Dr. Ram Mohan Sahare (PW-5) at Medical College, Jagdalpur and it has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-12, P-13 and P-14). The said blood sample were sent to State FSL Raipur for its DNA test on 27.01.2022 itself along with the memo of 10 Superintendent of Police, from where report dated 25.02.2022 was received by the police, which is exhibit P-40. Thus, it has been duly proved that the victim conceived pregnancy by physical relation made by the appellant. From the evidence of the victim (PW-1), it has been duly established that despite her refusal, the appellant after giving false promise of marriage made physical relation with her and ultimately fled away, which shows his intention from inception that he made false promise of marriage and indulge in sexual activities with the victim. 16. In the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar, 2017 (2) SCC 51, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: “30. By no means, it is suggested that whenever such charge of rape is made, where the victim is a child, it has to be treated as a gospel truth and the accused person has to be convicted. We have already discussed above the manner in which testimony of the prosecutrix is to be examined and analysed in order to find out the truth therein and to ensure that deposition of the victim is trustworthy. At the same time, after taking all due precautions which are necessary, when it is found that the prosecution version is worth believing, the case is to be dealt with all sensitivity that is needed in such cases. In such a situation one has to take stock of the realities of life as well. Various studies show that in more than 80% cases of 11 such abuses, perpetrators have acquaintance with the victims who are not strangers. The danger is more within than outside. Most of the time, acquaintance rapes, when the culprit is a family member, are not even reported for various reasons, not difficult to fathom. The strongest among those is the fear of attracting social stigma. Another deterring factor which many times prevent such victims or their families to lodge a complaint is that they find whole process of criminal justice system extremely intimidating coupled with absence of victim protection mechanism. Therefore, time is ripe to bring about significant reforms in the criminal justice system as well. Equally, there is also a dire need to have a survivor centric approach towards victims of sexual violence, particularly, the children, keeping in view the traumatic long lasting effects on such victims. 31. After thorough analysis of all relevant and attendant factors, we are of the opinion that none of the grounds, on which the High Court has cleared the respondent, has any merit. By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking 12 for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, 13 disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance {See Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003) 8 SCC 551}. Notwithstanding this legal position, in the instant case, we even find enough corroborative material as well, which is discussed hereinabove.” 17. The evidence of the victim (PW-1) is supported by the evidence of her father (PW-2), her mother (PW-3), who stated that when they saw the abdomen of the victim bigger than its normal size, they asked from her and then she disclosed that she conceived pregnancy the time of cutting of Neelgiri trees. Though they have stated that the victim does not disclose the name of any person, but their evidence has been corroborated with the evidence of the victim that at the time of cutting of Neelgiri tree of the village, the appellant also came there, he allured her for marriage and made physical relation 3-4 times, by which she conceived pregnancy and in the DNA report, the appellant is found to be biological father of her child. 18. PW-4, Dr. Anurag Bharti, who medically examined the appellant and found him capable to perform sexual intercourse and proved his medical report (exhibit P-11). 19. PW-8 is the Sarpanch of the village. He stated in his evidence that when the pregnancy of the victim came into knowledge of her parents, they informed him and then the victim disclosed that she conceived 14 pregnancy from the appellant. When they were in search of the appellant, he could not be found and they lodged the police report. 20. PW-13, Dr. Kamalkant Sori is the doctor who conducted the sonography test of the victim on 13.12.2021 and found that she was carrying 37 weeks 1 day pregnancy and his report is exhibit P-41. PW- 14, Dr. Dipti Pandey, who medically examined the victim has also proved her MLC report (exhibit P-42). 21. From the evidence available on record, the prosecution is able to prove the offence against the appellant that he committed rape upon the minor victim, who conceived pregnancy and ultimately delivered a female child. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996 (2) SCC 384 has observed that: “21. …….. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspirers confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her 15 statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.” 22. In the case of Prahlad v. State of Haryana, 2015 (8) SCC 688, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that: “17. It has to be borne in mind that an offence of rape is basically an assault on the human rights of a victim. It is an attack on her individuality. It creates an incurable dent in her right and free will and personal sovereignty over the physical frame. Everyone in any civilised society has to show respect for the other individual and no individual has any right to invade on physical frame of another in any manner. It is not only an offence but such an act creates a scar in the marrows of the mind of the victim. Anyone who indulges in a crime of such nature not only does he violate the penal provision of the IPC but also right of equality, right of individual identity and in the ultimate eventuality 16 an important aspect of rule of law which is a constitutional commitment. The Constitution of India, an organic document, confers rights. It does not condescend or confer any allowance or grant. It recognises rights and the rights are strongly entrenched in the constitutional framework, its ethos and philosophy, subject to certain limitation. Dignity of every citizen flows from the fundamental precepts of the equality clause engrafted under Articles 14 and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, for they are the “fon juris” of our Constitution. The said rights are constitutionally secured. 18. Therefore, regard being had to the gravity of the offence, reduction of sentence indicating any imaginary special reason would be an anathema to the very concept of rule of law. The perpetrators of the crime must realize that when they indulge in such an offence, the really create a concavity in the dignity and bodily integrity of an individual which is recognized, assured and affirmed by the very essence of Article 21 of the Constitution.” 23. From the evidence produced by the prosecution and after considering the entire material available in the record, the learned trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the alleged offences of rape with the minor victim, which in the opinion of this Court, does not suffer from 17 any perversity or illegality. We do not find any scope for interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and hereby dismissed. 24. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 20.12.2021. He shall serve the entire sentence as awarded 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 copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved