Nafr High Court | Courts & Cases

Case Details

1 2025:CGHC:2741-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 313 of 2021 Jodomani Nag S/o Sudarshan Nag Aged About 28 Years R/o Model Town, Udiya Basti, Ward No. 02, Bhilai, Police Station Supela District Durg Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Of Police Station Supela, Outpost Smriti Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.01.2025 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.27 10:48:20 +0530 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the 2 impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2021, passed by the learned Upper Session Judge/Second FTSC (POCSO Act), Durg (C.G.), in Special Session Trial No. 122 of 2019, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(च) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year; and under Section 376(A)(B) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year (all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently). 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on August 19, 2019, the victim's mother(PW-3) filed a written complaint stating that her four-and-a- half-year-old daughter(PW-2) had gone to her maternal aunt's house in Model Town, where the accused, Jodmani Nag, allegedly molested her. The victim's mother reported that when she went to the kitchen, she found her daughter crying, and the accused had removed the victim's and his own undergarments and turned off the lights. The victim's mother immediately rescued her daughter and informed her sister-in-law, younger sister, and neighbor Durgesh Nag about the incident. Based on the complaint, the police registered Crime Number 805/2019 against the accused, Jodmani Nag, at Supela Police Station. A medical examination of the victim(Ex.P/12) and the accused(Ex.P/15) was conducted, and their statements were recorded. The prosecution also seized properties, documents related to the victim's age, and recorded witness statements. 4. The accused was arrested and charged under Sections 376 D (N), 376 D (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of 3 Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in court on 01.10.2019. 5. Regarding the victim's date of birth, evidence was procured based

Facts

on the Birth Certificate (Ex.P/5C), confirming the date of birth of the victim as 07.03.2015. The statement of the victim(PW-2) was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The seized property was examined, and the report (Ex.P/21) was received from the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The accused was arrested through arrest memo vide Ex.P/17, and the statements of the victim and other witnesses were recorded. 6. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Upper Session Judge/Second FTSC (POCSO Act), Durg (C.G.) and the case was registered as Special Criminal Case POCSO No. 805 of 2019. The statements of witnesses were recorded. 7. Learned trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(च) and 376(A)(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Thereafter, the charges were read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt. 8. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 05 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The appellant- accused examined none in his defence nor exhibited any document in his support. 9. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document 4

Legal Reasoning

‘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 14 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 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 15 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 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 corroboration of her statement before 16 relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. …Corroboration as a condition for judicial 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 17 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 54]. 18 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 accept it for its face value without any 19 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 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. 20 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.” 28. 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 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 21 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].” 29. In the case of Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (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 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 22 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 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 and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difÏculty to act on the 23 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)].” 30. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidences of the victim (PW-2), mother of the victim (PW- 3) and father of the victim (PW-1) and birth certificate of the victim (Exs.P/ 5C), statement of the medical ofÏcer who has examined the victim and statement of Sub-Inspector Kamla Yadav (PW-4A), it is quite clear from the documentary and oral evidence presented by the prosecution on record and its analysis that the accused/appellant did wrong things with the victim and tried to rape the victim. 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 12 years and the accused took the victim, a four and a half year old innocent girl, with him on the date, time and place of the incident, removed her clothes and himself got naked and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. 31. Consequently, the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court under Sections 376(2)(च) and 376(A)(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is hereby upheld. So far as the conviction under above mentioned Sections is concerned, the same is also upheld, however, this Court is of 24 the view that the sentence of life imprisonment which would mean imprisonment for rest of the natural life, is too harsh and instead, the same is converted to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. The imposition of fine amount and the default sentence is upheld. 32. The appellant is stated to be in jail since 20.08.2019 being the date of arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified above. 33. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 34. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the jail term, 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. 35. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan

Arguments

10. Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Learned Upper Session Judge /Second Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Durg (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 122/2019, is contrary from the facts available on record and is liable to be set-aside. The learned Court below has convicted the appellant only on the ground of presumption and suspicious. There is no sufÏcient evidence which shows that the appellant has committed above mentioned offences. The prosecution has not produced any reliable evidence which shows that the appellant has committed sexual assault with the victim forcefully. The prosecution has further failed to produce the cogent medical evidence on record which shows that the victim has received injury and the said injury has been caused by the appellant and the appellant's mental condition is not well which is not considered by the trial Court. It is further submitted that since prosecution has failed to prove by adducing cogent evidence that, on the date of incident, victim was minor, hence the finding recorded by learned trial Court in this regard is not sustainable. 11. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the offences committed by the appellant were heinous in nature and thus, the trial court had rightly convicted him. He submitted that the trial Court had considered all the arguments made by the appellant and there was sufÏcient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the victim was minor and below 12 years of age at the time of incident which is proved by 5 the birth certificate (Ex.P-5C) which contains the date of birth of the victim as 07.03.2015. The evidence of the victim need not be required for any corroboration and on the sole testimony of the victim the conviction can be made. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the learned trial Court and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 13. In the instant case conviction of the accused/appellant is substantially based on the testimonies of the victim (PW-2), father of the victim (PW-1), mother of the victim (PW-3) and birth certificate (Ex.P/5C). 14. As per case of the prosecution, the date of birth of the victim is 07.03.2015 on this basis on the date of incident from 07.03.2015 to 19.08.2019, the age of the victim was 04 years, 05 months, 12 days. To substantiate this fact, prosecution has adduced birth certificate of victim which is a public document issued by the Chhattisgarh Government, which has its own importance. The victims parents have also mentioned the date of birth of the victim as 07.03.2015 and the defence has not raised any question regarding the date of birth of the victim. 15. The date of birth of the victim was recorded as 07.03.2015 in the birth certificate prior to the present incident on the basis of which victim was found to be aged about 04 years, 05 months, 12 days on the date of incident. The appellant did not adduced any evidence to discard aforesaid age of the victim. 6 16. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, we find that the learned trial Court has rightly held in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment that on the date of incident the victim was child i.e. below the age of 12 years. 17. So far as the allegation with regard to rape committed by the appellant against the victim is concerned, it is pertinent to note that PW-2, who is victim in the case, in her examination-in-chief has deposed that the accused is like her maternal uncle and he lives in her maternal grandmother's house. With regard to what happened with the victim, the victim has stated that the accused had closed her mouth, opened her leggings and opened his jeans as well and the victim states that the accused was licking. The victim was asked by the court as to where he was licking, then the victim was shown a plastic doll kept in the court and she touched the private parts of the said doll and told that the accused was licking there, the victim further stated that nothing else was done by the accused except licking. The victim has further stated in her evidence that when the accused did this, she started crying, hearing her cry, her mother came there and thereafter her mother informed the police. Thus the victim has clearly established the identity of the accused. After the said examination of the victim, the accused was identified by the victim, even then the victim identified him as her maternal uncle. In cross- examination, the victim has stated that at the time of the incident she had gone to her maternal uncle's house, she was playing outside, then her maternal uncle i.e. the accused took her to the kitchen room. 7 18. The mother of the victim (PW-3), has also corroborated the testimony of the victim (PW-2) in her deposition. She stated that the incident happened at 4-4.30 in the evening, at that time her husband was watching TV at his parental house, her daughter/victim was playing outside the house and she had taken her sister-in-law to dress her in a saree, after a while she heard the sound of her daughter/victim crying from the accused's room, hearing which she went to see, she thought that maybe someone has killed her child. She heard the sound of the victim crying coming from the kitchen, the room next to the accused's, then she entered the kitchen of the accused and switched on the light, then she saw that the clothes of the victim were removed and the accused had also removed his clothes. According to the mother of the victim, redness was visible at the private part of the victim, due to which she felt that the accused must have tried to rape the victim, then she separated her daughter/victim from the accused and brought her out and called her husband and told the elder brother of the accused. This witness has further stated that her brother, mother-in-law, neighbours and her sister came to know about the incident, then her sister called on number 112, and the police came to her maternal home and caught the accused and took him to the police station. According to the victim, they also went to the police station and only then the first information of the case was registered. 19. Mr. Ramesh Nag (PW-1) who is father of the victim also repeated the same sequence of events as PW-3 and told in his main examination that he was watching TV in his in-laws' house, after a while there was a commotion in the house, on hearing which he came out and saw that his 8 wife was standing with the victim near the door of the accused's house, then his wife told him that the accused Jodomani Nag had taken the victim inside his house to a small room and removed her clothes, he had also removed his clothes, then on hearing his daughter's screaming voice, his wife went to the victim and saw. The victim's father has told that he himself had seen that redness was visible at the private place of victim, due to which he felt that the accused had tried to commit a crime/rape the victim. In the cross-examination, the victim's father has told that he came to know about the incident only when his wife told him and he did not see this incident happening in front of his eyes. On being asked indicative questions by the prosecution, the victim's father (P.W.-1) has accepted that, on hearing the noise, when he went out and asked his wife, his wife told that the accused went inside the kitchen, switched off the light, undressed himself, undressed the victim, pressed her mouth and was biting her urination area. On hearing the victim's crying voice, his wife went and rescued the victim from the accused. 20. Sub-Inspector Kamla Yadav (PW-4A) has stated that after registration of the case, she has filled and sent the application (Ex.P.12) to Government Hospital Supela for the examination of the victim. The results regarding to medical examination of the victim were received as Ex.P-12. It becomes clear that according to the said report, the victim aged four and a half years was presented for examination before the examining doctor on 19.08.2019. The doctor, who conducted the test after obtaining written consent from the victim's parents, has stated in her test that the victim was conscious at the time of the test, was a girl of normal height, and there was no mark or scar on the external parts of her body. The 9 victim's secondary sexual characteristics were not developed. There was no scar or mark or any other mark on the victim's genitals or private parts. The victim's hymen was intact. On the basis of the above test result, the examining doctor has mentioned that no definite opinion can be given regarding sexual intercourse with the victim, and has mentioned that two slides were prepared from the victim's vulva, sealed and given to Assistant Sub-Inspector Kamla Yadav for chemical test. 21. Thus it is clear that the medical examination report of the victim (Ex.P.12) is in accordance with the victim and the evidence given by her. Therefore, the test report (Ex.P.12) confirms the statements of the victim, in which the victim has clearly stated that her private parts were licked by the accused, apart from this the accused did not do anything else. 22. Dr. Sanjay Kumar, who has examined the accused, had stated that on general examination he found that the accused was normal and his mental condition was also normal. He found that smegma was absent on the genitals of the accused. No external injury of any kind was found. On stimulation, the penis was found to have an erection normally. On the basis of the above result, Dr. Sanjay Kumar has given his opinion in the report (Ex.P.-23) that the accused was found capable of having sexual intercourse. 23. In view of above discussion, we also afÏrm finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant is the perpetrator of instant crime. 24. 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 10 State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, while considering the 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. 25. 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 even deposition of her father and mother is based on information given by victim 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. 26. We are not inclined with 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 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. 27. 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 11 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 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 12 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 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 13 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 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)