Rajat Soni S/o Late Tuntun Soni Aged About 25 Years R/o Jagriti Chawk, Camp v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Chhawani, District Durg Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No. 338/2025 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.24 14:55:36 +0530 2025:CGHC:48501-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 338 of 2025 Rajat Soni S/o Late Tuntun Soni Aged About 25 Years R/o Jagriti Chawk, Camp 01, Ward No. 27, Behind Nandu Kirana Store, Bhilai, P.S. Chhawani, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Chhawani, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Mayank Kumar with Shri Shahil Singh, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Shri Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 2 CRA No. 338/2025 22/09/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of the BNSS is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21/11/2024 passed in Special Crl. Case POCSO No. 25/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IV F.T.S.C. Durg District Durg (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 06 of POCSO Act R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, with default stipulation. 2. The brief gist of the prosecution story is that the complainant/ prosecutrix, on 16.01.2022, lodged a written complaint at Thana-Chhawani, stating that the accused, who resides at a short distance from her house, used to stare at her frequently. According to the complaint, on 09.12.2021, he called her to his house and, at around 11:00 a.m., forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. He threatened her by saying that she must come whenever he called, otherwise he would kill her and narrate about the relation between 3 CRA No. 338/2025 them in the locality. Thereafter, on 13.01.2022, he again called her to his house, but out of fear, she initially fled. On that day as well, he attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with her. The complainant/ prosecutrix further stated that the accused had already engaged in sexual intercourse with her on two prior occasions, although she could not recall the exact dates. Based on the written complaint (Ex. P-1) submitted by the complainant/prosecutrix, on 16.01.2022, Thana-Chhawani, District Durg, registered FIR under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, against the accused, and the matter was taken up for investigation. 3. During the course of the investigation, the prosecutrix produced the undergarment she was wearing at the time of the incident, which was seized in the presence of witnesses under a seizure memo (Ex. P/6). For medical examination of the prosecutrix, consent letters were obtained from the prosecutrix and her mother (Ex. P/2 and P/11, respectively). 4 CRA No. 338/2025 The prosecutrix underwent a medical examination, and the seized undergarment was also examined. The medical examination report was submitted to the Government Hospital, Supela. Pursuant to the same, the medical examination reports (Ex. P-14 and P-15) were obtained. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. After examination of her private parts, two vaginal slides prepared by the female doctor, which were sealed and produced, and subsequently the same were seized under a seizure memo (Ex. P-9) and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and is marked as Ex. P-7. The Dakhal Kharij register regarding the age of the victim were seized. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in its support and Exhibited 30 5. 6. 5 CRA No. 338/2025 documents (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/30). Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 21/11/2024 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the medical report does not support the prosecution story as stated by the victim, and that the appellant and the victim had a consensual relationship,
Facts
while the present FIR has been lodged with mala fide intentions to falsely implicate the appellant. The learned trial court failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence on record, including the fact that three key prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution story and no 6 CRA No. 338/2025 injury was found on the body of the victim. Moreover, numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements and evidence were overlooked by the trial court.
Legal Reasoning
In view of the above, the appellant has a strong prima facie case for acquittal, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are liable to be quashed. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the appellant and would submit that there is sufÏcient evidence against the appellant and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence, which does not require any interference. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. The first question for consideration arises whether the prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident or not? 7. 8. 9. 10. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding principles for determining the age of a child, which read as follows: 7 CRA No. 338/2025 “22. On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed under Section 68(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as under : “12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.? (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination 8 CRA No. 338/2025 inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining – (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. 9 CRA No. 338/2025 and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other 10 CRA No. 338/2025 documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall
Decision
also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub- rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.” 23. Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine the age of the prosecutrix VW-PW6. The manner of determining age conclusively, has been expressed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the 11 CRA No. 338/2025 scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated option available, would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion.” 12 CRA No. 338/2025 11. In the present case, as per the case of the prosecution, the date of birth of the Victim is 01/07/2006. To substantiate this fact, the prosecution has brought on Admission- Discharge Register (Ex. P/17-C) and Shyam Sundar Paswan posted as Head Master has been examined as PW7. He in his Court statement has categorically stated that as per entry made in Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex. P/17-C) at serial No. 483, the date of birth of the Victim is 01/07/2006. This witness has further stated that the victim was admitted to Class-I on the basis of her birth certificate. 12. The prosecutrix (PW1) in her Court statement has stated that her date of birth is 01.07.2006 and had appeared for Class-X examination. Father of the prosecutrix has deposed that date of birth of her daughter (PW-1) is 01.07.2006. Mother (PW-3) of the prosecutrix has deposed that her daughter (PW1) was aged about 15 years. 13. After considering the above statements, particularly the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex. P/17-C) and evidence on record, it is duly proved that the Victim (PW1) on the date of incident was minor and below the 18 years of age. The defence has 14. 15. 13 CRA No. 338/2025 not presented any oral or documentary evidence to refutes the said date of birth, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the date of birth of the Victim as 01.07.2006. The next question for consideration arises whether the appellant had committed rape with the prosecutrix or not?. As per the evidence of the Victim (PW1), that on 09.12.2021, the accused had called her to his house under the pretext of some work, and as she was known to him, she went there. Upon reaching his house, the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. When she informed him that she would disclose the matter to her family, he threatened to kill her, saying that if she told anyone about the incident, he would kill her and that she must come whenever he called; otherwise, he would intimate about the relation between them in the locality. She further stated that out of fear, she quietly returned home on the same day and did not disclose the incident to her parents or anyone else. Thereafter, the accused called her to his house on two other occasions and forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her, though she could not recall the exact dates. She stated 14 CRA No. 338/2025 that on 13.01.2022, the accused again called her to his house and, despite her refusal, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. Due to extreme distress, she informed her mother about the incident on 15.01.2022, and her mother subsequently informed her father. She stated that the following day, her parents took her to the police station, where she lodged a written complaint. 16. The father of the victim (PW-2) stated that the incident occurred on 09.12.2021. He stated that he works at a tent house which is adjacent to his house. On the date of the incident, the prosecutrix returned home crying and informed her mother that the accused, had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Upon knowing about the incident, the prosecutrix and her mother approached him, and the prosecutrix narrated the details of the incident to him. Thereafter, he, along with his mother, wife, and daughter (the prosecutrix), went to the house of the accused. He stated that a crowd had already gathered near the house of accused, and upon inquiry, the people present informed him that they had heard the prosecutrix’s cries and 15 CRA No. 338/2025 that she had been subjected to sexual misconduct. Upon receiving this information, he entered the house of the accused, but although the door was open, no one was present as the accused had fled. thereafter, he immediately went to lodge a report. 17. The mother of the victim (PW-3) stated that her daughter, the prosecutrix, came home crying in the afternoon, and upon inquiry, she informed her while crying that the accused, had lured her to his house and had committed sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that the prosecutrix informed her that the accused had threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter to anyone. The prosecutrix also told her that she was disclosing the incident due to extreme distress and that the accused had previously also committed sexual intercourse with her. The witness further stated that she then informed her husband about the incident. Subsequently, she along with her husband went to the house of the accused, where a large crowd had gathered. Upon inquiry with the people present, they came to know that the prosecutrix had come out of the accused’s 16 CRA No. 338/2025 house crying and that the accused had fled from the scene. 18. Dr. Mansi (PW-6) stated that on 16.01.2022 at about 03:30 p.m., the prosecutrix was brought before her for medical examination Upon examination, the witness did not find any external injury marks on the body of the prosecutrix, nor was any external injury found on her private parts. However, the hymen of the prosecutrix was found to be old and torn. The witness further stated that she prepared two vaginal slides from the vaginal orifice of the prosecutrix, advised for chemical examination. She did not give any definite opinion regarding recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. 19. In view of above discussion, we also afÏrm finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant is the perpetrator of instant crime. 20. During course of submission learned defence counsel draw our attention towards some contradictions and omissions in depositions of the prosecution witnesses, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, while considering the 17 CRA No. 338/2025 reliability of the statement of the victim has held that “minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault was enough for conviction and does not require corroboration unless there were compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The Court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience”. The same was reiterated in Pappu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 176. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant during course of argument also raised objection that except victim there is no credible evidence in support of her statement and medical evidence also does not corroborate, therefore, only on the basis of deposition of victim holding guilty to the appellant by the learned trial Court is not sustainable. 22. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant as it is settled proposition of law that conviction of the accused could be based on sole 18 CRA No. 338/2025 testimony, without corroboration and it has also been held that the sole testimony of victim should not be doubted by the Court merely based on assumptions and surmises. 23. In the case of Ganesan vs. State, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the victim is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the series of judgments on conviction on the sole evidence of the victim. In paragraphs 10.1 to 10.3, it was observed and held as under: “10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay [Vijay vs. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191], it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98) “9. In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash 19 CRA No. 338/2025 Kewalchand Jain, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 550] this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16) ‘16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of 20 CRA No. 338/2025 law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.’ 10. In State of U.P. vs. Pappu [State of U.P. vs. Pappu, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 594] this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to 21 CRA No. 338/2025 absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 597, para 12) ‘12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difÏcult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of 22 CRA No. 338/2025 an accomplice, would do.’ 11. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384], this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty- bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394-96 & 403, paras 8 & 21) ‘8. …The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and 23 CRA No. 338/2025 preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating ofÏcer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating ofÏcer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. …The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. …Seeking costerling witnessrroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. … Corroboration as a condition for judicial 24 CRA No. 338/2025 reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. … *** 21. …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 inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difÏcult 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.’ 12. In State of Orissa vs. Thakara Besra [State of Orissa vs. Thakara Besra, reported in (2002) 9 25 CRA No. 338/2025 SCC 86], this Court held that rape is not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. In State of H.P. vs. Raghubir Singh [State of H.P. vs. Raghubir Singh, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 622], this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan vs. State of M.P. [Wahid Khan vs. State of M.P., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 9] placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan [Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1952 SC 26 CRA No. 338/2025 54]. 14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.” 10.2. In Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana [Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130], it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufÏcient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 10.3. Who can be said to be a “sterling witness”, has been dealt with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeep vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [Rai Sandeep vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21]. In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to 27 CRA No. 338/2025 accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it 28 CRA No. 338/2025 should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 24. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Pankaj Chaudhary, reported in (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 29 CRA No. 338/2025 should not be doubted by Court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. In paragraph 29, it was observed and held as under: “29. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. [Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra [Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 283]. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the “probabilities factor” does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. [State of Rajasthan vs. N.K. [State of Rajasthan vs. N.K., reported in (2000) 5 SCC 30].” 25. In the case of Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34, the Supreme Court observed that 30 CRA No. 338/2025 testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difÏculty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence 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. In paragraphs 6 and 7, it was observed and held as under: “6. We are conscious that the courts 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 the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difÏcult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence 31 CRA No. 338/2025 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 court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults. [See State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384] (SCC p. 403, para 21).] 7. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness 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 32 CRA No. 338/2025 and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difÏculty 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. (See Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam [Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 635)].” 26. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidences of the victim (PW-1) and her parents (PW-2 &PW-3) of the victim (PW-5), Dakhil-kharij Register (Ex.P/17C), it is quite clear from the documentary and oral evidence presented by the prosecution on record and its analysis that the accused person, after luring the victim, he took her to his house and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her on different occasions and also threatened her with dire consequences. The prosecution has also been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of the incident, the victim was minor i.e. below the age of 18 years and the accused sexual 27. 28. 33 CRA No. 338/2025 intercourse with the minor victim. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentenced as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. It is stated that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the remaining sentence. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case 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 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. 29. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be 34 CRA No. 338/2025 transmitted to the Trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib