Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Saraipali, District Mahasamun
Case Details
1 CRA No. 492 of 2022 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.18 10:15:37 +0530 2025:CGHC:33569-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 492 of 2022 Miniketan Sarthi S/o Vipin Sarthi Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Banigirola Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma with Mr. Gajendra For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, P.L. Prasad Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, J 17/07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma with Mr. Gajendra Prasad Sahu, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as
Legal Reasoning
“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 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 everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert 9 CRA No. 492 of 2022 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. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can 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 recise, 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.” 19. Also, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, 1990 SCC 550 held as under:- “A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on 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 10 CRA No. 492 of 2022 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 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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘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 own to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses 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.” 11 CRA No. 492 of 2022 20. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of above principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that from the statement of victim PW-2 that the accused took her on the pretext of purchasing clothes and then took her to an empty house and put a dupatta on her mouth and took off her clothes. After that the accused moved his finger in her private part and shook his hand. After that he took out his hand and raped her. She further stated that the accused threatened her that, if she tell her mother about the incident, he will kill her and her family.
Arguments
Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the 2 CRA No. 492 of 2022 State/respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) Saraipali, District Mahasmund in Special (POCSO) Case No. 23/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 506- B of the IPC R. I. For 03 years & fine of Rupees 200/- in default of fine Addl. R.I. for 01 month Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act According to POCSO Act Section 42 alternative punishment on basis of provision of aforesaid section sen- tenced U/s 376(2) (F) of IPC and U/s 376 (A) and (B) of IPC U/s 376 (2) (F) of IPC Imprisonment for life till natural death and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in lieu of fine amount R.I. for 2 months. U/s 376 (A) and (B) of IPC Imprisonment for life till natural death and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in lieu of fine amount R.I. for 2 months All the sentences are to be run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the mother of the victim lodged a report against the accused in the police station Saraipali to the effect that the accused, who is the son of her brother-in-law and the cousin brother of victim, on 12.12.2020, he came to her house on a motorcycle at around 6 PM and told prosecutrix that he would go to Saraipali to get clothes, on which the mother of the 3 CRA No. 492 of 2022 prosecutrix refused to go to Saraipali as it was already evening, but the accused did not agree and said that prosecutrix would buy clothes of her choice, and took prosecutrix with him on the motorcycle and returned at around 8 PM. Then the victim did not eat dinner that night and slept. The accused ate dinner at the house of the complainant and slept at night. And on 13/12/2020, he got up at around 4 AM and left saying that he was going home. When the victim also woke up, she was unable to walk and was crying. On which the complainant questioned the victim, the victim told that on 12/12/20, in the evening, the accused when took her on the pretext of getting her clothes, he took him to an empty house and removed the clothes of the prosecutrix and was inserting his finger in her private parts, after that he lay on top of her and forcefully raped her and threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone about this and the private parts and undergarments of the prosecutrix were covered in blood and she was groaning in pain and was unable to walk. Thereafter the FIR was registered and the criminal law was set into motion. During course of investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/11) was got prepared. Victim got medically examined vide Report Ex.P/14. Accused was apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted accordingly. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out 4 CRA No. 492 of 2022 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 13 witnesses in its support. 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. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 13.12.2021 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the statement of the victim is filled with contradictions and omissions, thus not worthy of being given credence. He further submits that conviction cannot be based on guesswork. He submits that victim is a child witness, thus, not to be believed in the absence of corroboration and prosecution story is filled with doubts. He also submits that no adverse finding was given in the FSL report, benefit whereof should be extended to the accused. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 5 CRA No. 492 of 2022 8. 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. 9. The first question for consideration is whether the victim is minor/ below the age of 18 years or not? 10. PW-2 victim herself stated that she is 10 years and she studied in class 6th which is corroborated by the Ex.P-8 Dakhil Khariz register which is proved by PW-3 Darash Ram, Incharge Head master of Government Primary School Banigirola in which the Date of Birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 19.09.2009. Statement of these witnesses remains totally unchallenged during cross-examination. Therefore, for want of challenge and proved materials available on record, we do not have any hesitation in holding that the victim on the date of incident being below the age of 18 years, is 'child' within the meaning of section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. 11. The next question for consideration would come, whether the appellant committed such heinous act with the Victim or not? 12. PW-2, the victim herself deposed that the accused is her cousin brother. She further stated that the accused came to her house and told her that we will go to buy clothes. She further stated that her mother told not to go as it was night but the accused said that prosecutrix can take clothes of her choice. Saying this, the 6 CRA No. 492 of 2022 accused took her in his bike. Then on the way the accused put a dupatta on her mouth and took her to her uncle's empty house and there the accused took off her clothes. After that the accused moved his finger in her private part and shook his hand. After that he took out his hand and raped her. She further stated that the accused threatened her that, if she tell her mother about the incident, he will kill her, her sister and mother too. After this, the accused brought her back to her house and started sleeping in her house at night. The accused woke up at 4 am and went to his house. She further stated that when she woke up in the morning her stomach was aching and when she went to pee, urine was not coming out. Then she told her mother that the accused has done bad things with her and thereafter her mother called her aunt and after that they went to the police station and filed a report. 13. PW1 mother of the prosecutrix stated that the accused took prosecutrix with him on the pretext of purchasing clothes. She further stated that she had initially denied letting prosecutrix go with the accused but when the accused forced, she let her go. She further stated that at night about 07-08 pm the accused and prosecutrix came back and when I asked why she did not bring clothes, then she told that the shop was closed. After that the prosecutrix slept. Then I told her to get up and eat food, then she said that I will not eat, I am not feeling well and went to sleep. After this the accused ate food and slept in our house itself. The next day at 04.00 am the accused went in his motorcycle. When 7 CRA No. 492 of 2022 the accused was leaving, the prosecutrix also got up and went to urinate holding her stomach and bending down saying that her stomach is hurting. So I abused her and asked why her stomach is hurting, then she told me while crying that the accused took her to an empty house and did bad things with her. Thereafter, I called my daughter-in-law and we lodged the report. 14. PW/6 Dr. Mehnaz stated that on internal examination of prosecutrix, she found that pubic hair was absent. prosecutrix sexual characteristics were present, a torn wound was visible on the perineum between the vagina and anus of the victim. Blood was oozing from the vagina of the victim, the hymen of the victim was torn. There was a torn injury in the labia minora. During the examination of the victim, she was in extreme pain. She further stated that according to her, sexual assault was done forcefully on the victim. The report in this regard is Ex.P. 09. 15. Medical Examination of the appellants/accused was conducted a report vide Ex.P/14 and opined that the appellant is able to do sexual intercourse. 16. It is settled principle that if the testimony of the victim is trustworthy and totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the victim does not have a strong motive to falsely implicate the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her/his evidence. 17. It has also become almost settled position of law that conviction 8 CRA No. 492 of 2022 can be based on the solitary statement of victim, provided same inspires confidence of the court. 18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:-
Decision
21. In the result, particularly considering the fact that the victim has categorically stated that the accused has raped her and also threatened her with dire consequences and particularly looking to the Medical examination report (Ex.P/9) wherein it is categorically stated by the Doctor that sexual assault was done forcefully on the victim therefore 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. 22. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment 12 CRA No. 492 of 2022 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. 23. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $. Bhilwar