XYZ Nill v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38701-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1154 of 2025 XYZ Nill ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Pulgaon, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Tandan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) is directed against the 2 impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2020 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge to the Court of First F.T.C. Special Judge (POCSO Act) Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 110/2019, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction under Section Sentence Section 376(A)(B) of the Indian Till natural death imprisonment and fine Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of Section 376(2) of the IPC Till natural death imprisonment and fine fine amount 02 months additional R.I. of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine amount 02 months additional R.I. Section 506 (Part-1) of the IPC R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine amount 10 days S.I. Section 323 of the IPC Fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount 10 days S.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim filed a written report on 29.06.2019 to the effect that she is 16 years old, she has studied upto class VIII, her father Kalyandas Manikpuri has been forcibly having physical relations with her for the last five years, she was very young at that time, she had no idea about the wrongdoings, she used to stay in the house in fear. She further stated that when she used to live alone, her father used to do bad things with her. If she refused, he used to beat her and threaten her not to tell this to anyone, if she told anyone then he would 3 beat her badly. On Tuesday dated 25.06.2019 at around 11:00 am, when she was alone in the house, her mother had gone to work, then her father forcibly had physical relations with her. On 28.06.2019 at around 1:30 pm he tried to force himself on her, then she told this to her mother and grandmother, her mother and grandmother abused her father a lot. 4. On the basis of the above written report (Ex.P.1) of the victim, Inspector Shailendra Kumar Thakur of Pulgaon Police Station registered Crime No. 327/2019 (Ex.P.2) against accused Kalyandas Manikpuri. Police Station Incharge Shailendra Kumar Thakur seized the mutation register regarding the birth of the victim as per seizure memo Ex.P.16. Police Station Incharge Shailendra Kumar Thakur gave the application Ex.P.24 to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg for the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 5. During the investigation, the investigating officer Mrs. Baby Nanda (PW-06) prepared a site map (Ex.P.3) of the incident as per the information given by the victim. She also provided the Class-I date of the victim in connection with her birth. The progress report was seized as per seizure report Ex.P.8. He took consent letter from the victim and her mother for medical examination of the victim as per Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.13 and submitted application Ex.P.18 to District Hospital Durg for getting the victim's private parts medically examined by the doctor. He submitted application (Ex.P.19) to Government Hospital Durg for medical examination of the accused in relation to sexual intercourse. On presentation of constable Sandhya Soni, two sealed vaginal slides were seized as per seizure report (Ex.P.20). Underwear of the victim and accused was seized by him as per Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.12. The property 4 seized by the investigating officer was sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory Raipur Chhattisgarh through Superintendent of Police for chemical examination, draft of which is Ex.P.25, whose exhibit receipt is Ex.P.26 and opinion report is Ex.P.27. 6. Application under Ex.P.30 was given by the investigating officer Mrs. Baby Nanda to the Tehsildar office, Durg for getting the map of the place of occurrence prepared from the Patwari and the statement of the witnesses was recorded as per their statement and the statement of the victim was recorded by her. On finding the offence against the accused under Sections 376, 376 (2)(f), 376 (2)(n) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, the accused Kalyandas Manikpuri was arrested in front of the witnesses as per the arrest sheet Ex.P.28. The accused was arrested and the family members of the accused were informed about his arrest as per Ex.P. 29. After thorough investigation, SHO Shailendra Kumar Thakur found the accused guilty under Sections 376 (2)(f), 376 (2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and presented Ex.P. 31 as chargesheet No. 307/2019 dated 28.08.2019 before this Court. 7. From a perusal of the presented charge-sheet and the attached
Legal Reasoning
documents, prima facie it appears that the accused has committed the offences under Sections 376(a)(b), 376 (2), 506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 (l), 5 (m), 5 (n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as Section 6 of this Act, hence charges were framed under the said sections. On being read out and explained to the accused, the accused denied having committed the crime and demanded trial, claiming himself to be innocent. In the trial under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that he is innocent and that he has 5 been falsely implicated and expressed his desire not to give defence evidence in his defence. 8. In support of its case on behalf of the prosecution, the victim (PW- 1), the elder sister of the victim (PW-2), the mother of the victim (PW-3), the maternal grandmother of the victim (PW-4), Dr. Kunti Thakur (PW-5), Assistant Sub-Inspector Mrs. Baby Nanda (PW-6) and the Principal of the victim's school (PW-7) have been examined. No defence evidence has been presented in the defence on behalf of the accused. 9. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph-2 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 10. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant, that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence placed on record and has also failed to consider that there are inordinate delays in lodging the F.I.R. Further, the learned trial Court failed to consider that the victim was below the age of 18 years wherein facts the age of the victim below the 18 years has not been proved by the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt as the age of victim has not been supported by the evidence of Santosh Kumar Sinha (PW-7), Headmaster as per the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/32). Also, the victim was medically examined in which the Dr. Kunti Thakur (PW-5) has not found any recent intercourse with the victim nor found any external or internal injury on the part of victim 6 as per Ex. P/5. The prosecution has not conducted any ossification test of the victim and doctor has given opinion for x-ray but the prosecution has also not done the same. The M.L.C. report produced by the prosecution does not support the case or prosecution even the doctor not supported the case of prosecution. The learned trial Court committed error of law by convicting the accused /appellant inspite the failure of prosecution to prove the charge beyond the reasonable doubt. 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 learned trial court had rightly convicted him. He submitted that the trial Court had considered all the arguments made by the appellant and there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the victim was minor and aged about 13 years 11 months at the time of incident which is proved by the Admission-Discharge register (Ex.P/32C) which contains the date of birth of the victim as 05.07.2005. Further, the victim/complainant has been medically examined by Dr. Kunti Thakur (PW-5) and vide MLC report (Ex.P/5) opined that the hymen old ruptured and healed and intercourse occurred previously. She has prepared two vaginal slides, which was seized vide Ex.P/20. That, as per the FSL report Ex.P/27 human sperm is found in Articles-A, B and C. 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. 7 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 present case conviction of the accused/appellant is substantially based on the testimonies of the victim (PW-1), the elder sister of the victim (PW-2), the mother of the victim (PW-3), the maternal grandmother of the victim (PW-4), Dr. Kunti Thakur (PW-5), Assistant Sub-Inspector Mrs. Baby Nanda (PW-6) and the Principal of the victim's school (PW-7) and Admission-Discharge register (Ex.P/32C) of the victim. 14. As per case of the prosecution, the date of birth of the victim is 05.07.2005 and on this basis, on the date of incident i.e. 25.06.2019 and 05 years prior to that, the age of the victim was about 09 years and less than 12 years. To substantiate this fact, prosecution has adduced Admission-Discharge register of Government Primary School, Damoda, District- Durg (C.G.), which has been proved by the Head Master of the said school Santosh Kumar Sinha (PW-7). This witness has clearly deposed in his deposition that in the Admission-Discharge register information with regard to victim has been noted in Sl. No. 918 and she was admitted in Class-I on 17.09.2011. He has also stated that as per this Register, the date of birth of victim is 05.07.2005. 15. The date of birth of the victim was recorded as 05.07.2005 in the Admission-Discharge register prior to 08 years of the present incident and on the basis of which victim was found to be aged about 09 years on the date of incident. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to discard aforesaid age of the victim. 8 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. Regarding the allegation of rape committed by the appellant, the victim (PW-01) has stated in her examination regarding the incident that she knows the accused present in the Court, he is her father. She had lodged a report of the incident in Police Station Pulgaon 3-4 months ago. Before the incident she used to live with her father, maternal grandmother and elder sister. Her father Kalyandas Manikpuri had been raping her since she was in class III. When she used to say that she will tell her mother about the incident, the accused used to beat and threaten her. When no one was at home, her father/accused used to have physical relations with her. About three months ago, the accused, who is her father, was forcing her to have physical relations and at that time she was having her menstruation, she refused by abusing him and the next day she went to Pulgaon Police Station to report the matter, then the police men called her father/accused and her mother and her elder sister, then she told the entire thing about the incident committed by the accused/her father to her mother and elder sister, later she also told about the incident to her grandmother. 18. The victim further stated that she had lodged a complaint at the Police Station. She had given a written application (Ex.P.01) to the Pulgaon Police Station to take action against her father. After giving her 9 written complaint, the victim had lodged a report of Ex.P.02. The police interrogated her and took her statement, then she told them about the incident done by her father/accused, later her elder sister told her that her father/accused had established physical relations with her too. Later the police came to her house and prepared a site map (Ex.P.03) of the incident as per her statement. The victim has also told that the Patwari came to her house and prepared a site map (Ex.P.09) of the incident. The police asked her to get her examined, then she gave consent, the consent form is Ex.P.4. She was medically examined by a lady doctor in the District Hospital Durg, her examination report is Ex.P.5. Her X-ray was also taken, her X-ray report is Ex.P.6. The police seized her underwear from her as per the seizure sheet Ex.P.7. Earlier, the police had taken her to the Judicial Magistrate, Durg for statement where her statement was recorded by the Magistrate, she had told him about the incident committed by her father/accused, her statement recorded before the Magistrate is Ex.P.10. 19. Investigating Assistant Sub-Inspector Mrs. Baby Nanda (PW-06) has stated in her examination that on 29.06.2019, the victim of the present case presented a written complaint of Ex.P.01 before the station-in- charge Shailendra Kumar Thakur posted at Police Station Pulgaon and on the basis of the written complaint of the victim, the station in-charge Shailendra Kumar Thakur registered the crime of First Information Report No. 327/2019 against the accused. The witness has stated to recognize Shailendra Kumar on the basis of him being a senior officer and has certified the signature of the station in-charge Shailendra Kumar Thakur on the First Information Report (Ex.P.02). Investigator Baby Nanda has 10 stated that she herself conducted the remaining investigation of the case and has certified her signature on the site map Ex.P.03, seizure memo Ex.P.16, seizure memo Ex.P.20, consent applications taken for medical examination of the victim Ex.P.04 and 13, application Ex.P.18 given to District Hospital Durg for medical examination of the victim, seizure memo Ex.P.12 of the accused's underwear and application Ex.P.22 given to the doctor for examination of the said underwear. 20. Along with this, he has also certified his signature on the seizure memo Ex.P.07 of the victim's underwear, and on the application Ex.P.23 given to the doctor regarding the examination of the seized underwear of the victim and has also stated that the police station in-charge Shailendra Thakur had given an application of Ex.P.24 for recording the statement of the victim before the magistrate under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The statement of the victim recorded before the magistrate is Ex.P.10. The witness has also stated that he had given an application of Ex.P.30 to the Tehsildar Durg for preparing the Patwari map of the place of incident. The Patwari map of the place of incident is Ex.P.9. He had recorded the statement of the victim and other witnesses as per their instructions. 21. Thus, the facts stated by the victim in her examination regarding registering the crime on the written complaint (Ex.P.01) by the victim about the incident committed by the accused with the victim and registering the First Information Report (Ex.P.02) by the investigating officer on that basis and investigating the case are also confirmed by the evidence of the investigating assistant sub-inspector Baby Nanda. 22. The victim has stated in her examination that after the FIR was 11 registered, the police took her consent for medical examination and got her medical examination done by a female doctor in the District Hospital, Durg. The medical examination report (Ex.P.05) has also been certified by the victim, which is also confirmed by the evidence of medical witness Dr. Kunti Thakur (P.W. 05). 23. Dr. Kunti Thakur has stated in her examination that on the night of 30.06.2019 at 1:19 pm, the victim was brought for medical examination in front of her and she conducted a medical examination of the victim with her consent. In her external examination, she found that the victim was of normal height, was fully conscious, her breasts were developed and secondary sexual characteristics were also developed, as per the victim, her menstrual cycle was regular and her last menstrual period was on 26.06.2019. On conducting an internal examination of the victim, the medical witness Dr. Kunti found the victim's hymen torn and in her opinion, the medical witness found that the victim had intercourse, but the medical witness did not give any opinion regarding the immediate intercourse with the victim. For a definite opinion, she prepared two slides from the victim's vagina for chemical examination. She has also certified her signature on the medical examination report (Ex.P-5) prepared by her. 24. Thus, in the medical examination report of the victim (Ex.P.05), the doctor witness has clearly written that "Hymen-old ruptured and healed", it is also mentioned that intercourse occurred previously." Thus, according to the opinion of the doctor expert, it is proved that sexual intercourse with the victim had taken place earlier. 25. Medical witness Dr. Kunti Thakur (PW-05) has stated in her 12 examination that the seized underwear of the victim was brought before her on 30.06.2019 by lady constable Sandhya Soni in a sealed packet for examination and the said underwear was stated to be of the victim, on examining the said underwear she found that it was an old brown coloured underwear, in which liquid like stains were found, which she circled with blue ink and returned after sealing it to the same lady constable, advising for chemical examination, her report is Ex.P.14. 26. Investigating officer Mrs. Baby Nanda has stated in her examination that in the case, the seized property was sent through the Superintendent of Police office in the form of a draft (Ex.P.25) for chemical testing, receipt of which is Ex.P.26 and opinion report is Ex.P.27. 27. By observing the report received from the State Forensic Science Laboratory Raipur in Ex.P.27, it is shown that the vaginal slide seized by the investigator from the victim was kept as Exhibit-A. The statement of the victim regarding rape by her father/accused is also supported by the opinion of medical expert Dr. Kunti and the chemical test report Ex.P.27. 28. Regarding the incident of rape committed by the accused on the victim, the victim herself has stated in her examination that her father had been raping her since she was in class III. Similarly, on evidence dated 20.09.2019, the victim has also stated that about three months ago, when her father/accused was forcing her to have physical relations with him, she had gone to the Pulgaon Police Station and lodged a report of the incident the next day along with her mother. In cross-examination, the victim has stated that when her father tried to rape her on 25.06.2019, she had lodged a report of the incident in the Pulgaon Police Station on 13 29.06.2019. The victim has also certified her written complaint Ex.P.01 and First Information Report Ex.P.02 in the judicial examination, which has not been contradicted in cross-examination. Thus, the victim has clearly stated in the said complaint that for the past five years her father has been forcibly having physical relations with her. 29. She further stated that on 25.06.2019 at about 11:00 AM when she was alone at home and her mother had gone to work, the accused forcibly had physical relations with her and on 28.06.2019 at about 1.30 PM, the accused tried to rape her. Then she told the incident to her mother and grandmother and on 29.06.2019, she lodged a report against her father in Pulgaon Police Station. The victim has made a similar statement in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Thus, it is clear from the said written complaint of the victim, First Information Report and police statement that the accused has been raping the victim for about five years and the last time he raped the victim was on 25.06.2019 and on 28.06.2019 when the accused tried to force himself on the victim, then she lodged a report in the police station on 29.06.2019 and it is clear from the evidence of the doctor and the medical examination report of the victim Ex.P.05 that the medical examination of the victim was done on the night of 30.06.2019, then in such a situation, the opinion given by the doctor witness that no definite opinion was given regarding the immediate sexual intercourse with the victim in the medical examination is natural and on that basis, the case of the prosecution does not become doubtful regarding the incident because it is clear from the said evidence of the prosecution and the documentary evidence that the victim was raped by the accused for the last time on 25.06.2019 and not on the date of medical 14 examination 30.06.2019 or on the date of filing the First Information Report 29.06.2019. Regarding the rape of the victim by the accused, although the doctor has not given the opinion that there was immediate sexual intercourse with the victim, but she has given the opinion in her examination that there was sexual intercourse with the victim. Thus, her statement regarding the rape of the victim by the accused is also corroborated by the evidence of the doctor witness. 30. Though the sister of the victim (PW-02), mother of the victim (PW- 03) and maternal grandmother of the victim (PW-04) are the first witnesses of the incident, yet the evidence of the said witnesses are important and relevant evidence as supporting evidence of the evidence of the victim and also in relation to the sequence of events after the First Information Report was lodged against the accused in the case after the victim told them about the molestation. 31. Since the victim's elder sister/child witness (PW-02) has stated in the main examination that she knows the accused present in the court, he is her father. She knows the victim, she is her younger sister. The victim had lodged a report of the incident in Police Station Pulgaon 3-4 months ago. Before the incident she used to live with her father, maternal grandmother and younger sister. The victim told her that her father/Kalyan Das Manikpuri used to rape her since she was in class III. When the victim used to say that she will tell her mother about the incident, the accused used to beat her and threaten her. When the victim was very young and when no one was at home, the accused used to have physical relations with her and he also used to have physical relations with her. Due to fear, both the sisters did not have the courage to tell this to anyone 15 because the accused/his father used to threaten them. When the victim had lodged a report against the accused, who is her father, about three months ago when he was forcing her to have physical relations with him, she went to Pulgaon police station and lodged a written complaint against her father. Then she also mustered courage and went to Pulgaon police station the next day and lodged a written complaint against her father. Her mother and the victim told her the entire incident committed by her father. Later, she also told her maternal grandmother about the incident and lodged a report about the incident at Pulgaon police station. The police had seized the underwear of the victim in front of her, which is Ex.P.7. When the accused Kalyan Das was produced, the police seized his underwear which is Ex.P.12. The police interrogated her and recorded her statement, then she told about the incident that happened with the victim and also about the incident that happened with her. 32. The mother of the victim (PW-03) has stated in the main examination that the accused is her husband. The victim is her daughter. She has three daughters and one son. The eldest is the son, followed by her daughter, the second daughter (PW-02) and the youngest daughter is the victim of the present case. Her elder son lives in Raipur to earn a living. Her husband/accused had left her earlier, then she used to live in her house with her three daughters and her mother. Later, when a meeting was held in the village, people explained to her to keep her husband with her, then her husband/accused came back to their house and started living with them. The victim (PW-01) has clarified in her examination that before the incident, she used to live in her village with her father, grandmother and elder sister (PW-02). The mother of the 16 victim has also clarified in her examination that her elder daughter is married and lives in her in-laws' house. She used to go to work in the farm along with her middle daughter and her younger daughter, the victim of the present case, used to go to study. 4-5 months ago, in the evening when her middle daughter and her mother were at home, the victim told her that when you all go to work, her father/accused beats and rapes her and says that If you tell anyone, I will beat up your grandmother, mother and sisters. In this way the accused has misbehaved/raped her several times. 33. The mother of the victim has also stated in her main examination that at the same time her middle daughter (PW-02) also told that the accused/her father had forcefully raped her too many times and both her daughters told her that they were fed up with their father/accused's actions and could not tolerate it anymore so they were gathering courage to tell. The victim told her that when she had gone to work in the afternoon and her grandmother was also not at home, he raped her at 11:00 am and two days later he tried to rape her forcefully in the afternoon. After that she asked her husband/accused that why does he do such wrong things with the daughters in her presence, then he said that he does not do any wrong thing and the accused abused her that he has not done this and they are trying to forcefully implicate him. Then her daughter/victim and she together went to Pulgaon police station to lodge a report against her husband/accused. The police interrogated him and recorded his statement. He told the police whatever the victim and her middle daughter (PW 02) had told him about the incident. She also stated in her main examination that the victim had made a written complaint regarding the 17 incident in the police station Pulgaon. The police had taken her consent for getting the victim medically examined, which is Ex.P.13. She had also gone to the Government Hospital Durg along with the victim for medical examination. In her presence the policemen had seized the underwear of the accused. The seizure memo is Ex.P.12. In her presence the policemen had seized the underwear of the victim when the victim produced it, the seizure memo is Ex.P.7. 34. The maternal grandmother of the victim (PW-04) has stated in her main examination that she knows the accused, the accused is her son-in- law. The victim is her granddaughter. The victim has studied up to class VIII and then dropped out of school. Her daughter used to go to work in the field along with her middle granddaughter and her youngest granddaughter/victim used to go to study. 4-5 months back in the evening at that time her middle granddaughter and her daughter were at home. The victim told that when they go to work her father/accused rapes her and used to say that if she tells anyone then I will beat up your grandmother, mother, sisters. In this way the accused has committed bad deeds/raped her many times. The victim's grandmother has also told that at the same time her middle granddaughter (PW-02) told her that the accused/her father had forcefully raped her many times and both her granddaughters told her that they were fed up with their father/accused's actions and could not tolerate it, so they are telling you all this with courage. The victim told them that when they went to work, her father/accused used to forcefully rape her at different places. Even when her elder sister (PW-02) was not there, her father used to do wrong things by having physical relations. Then she along with her 18 granddaughter/victim and her daughter (PW-03) went to Pulgaon police station to lodge a report against her son-in-law/accused. The police interrogated her and took her statement. 35. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of the victim's mother and grandmother that when the victim told them about the incident, they immediately took the victim to the police station to lodge a report and then the victim gave a written complaint about the incident in Pulgaon police station and on the basis of that, Crime No. 327/2019 was registered against the accused in connection with the incident. Then, from the above evidence analysis of the prosecution, a proper explanation and circumstances of the delay in filing the first information have been shown by the prosecution. Anyway, in cases of sexual violence within the family, pressure is exerted by family members not to file a report of the crime against the culprit and when such an act is committed by the husband of a woman himself, then the question of livelihood, education and safety of the victim and other children also arises before such a helpless mother, along with the fear of public shame and disrepute of the family and the fear of being ostracized by society and the pressure exerted by family members not to file a report, prevents the children who are victims of such harassment from raising their voice against the sexual violence happening within the home. It is still easy for such a woman to fight against the conflict outside the house, but when the crime happens within the four walls of the house, then the pressure of the family and society and the questions of the safety, livelihood, upbringing and education of the children etc. arise and the voice of such an innocent victim is suppressed by her own family members. Such a victim-exploited child does not have a 19 voice of their own, only when they get support from someone, they are able to raise their voice against their family member. In the present case, the head of the house responsible for protecting the victim, her father responsible for protecting her, became her predator and the victim was made a victim of the lust of her own father/accused for a long time and a minor daughter/victim had to bear the misdeeds of her own father for a long time, then certainly in such a situation it is extremely painful and difficult to raise her voice outside the family and to complain against her own father. 36. The evidence of the victim's sister also shows that when the victim lodged a report against the accused, she also showed courage and raised her voice against her father/accused and went to Pulgaon police station the next day along with her mother and grandmother and lodged a report of the incident. Therefore, in the circumstances shown in the present case, the reason given by the prosecution witnesses for the delay in reporting the incident by the victim is appropriate and reasonable. Therefore, this delay in filing the First Information Report does not shatter the prosecution case. 37. The victim is a competent witness as per the provision under section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act and she has confirmed her statement recorded under section 161 and section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in her judicial examination. Though the mother, maternal grandmother and sister of the victim are interested witnesses of the victim, yet their evidence corroborates the statement given by the victim regarding the incident that happened with her. Therefore, the prosecution case does not become doubtful merely because the victim's mother, grandmother and 20 sister are interested witnesses. Because on the basis of the entire evidence analysis of the prosecution, the incident committed by the accused with the victim is proved by the victim's own evidence and the victim's evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of the victim's mother and grandmother. 38. In view of above discussion, we also affirm finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant is the perpetrator of instant crime. 39. In the matter of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 17 SCC 291, in paras 14 and 20, it is observed as under: “14. At the very outset, it has to be stated with authority that the Pocso Act is a gender legislation. This Act has been divided into various chapters and parts therein. Chapter II of the Act titled “Sexual Offences Against Children” is segregated into five parts. Part A of the said Chapter contains two sections, namely, Section 3 and Section 4. Section 3 defines the offence of “Penetrative Sexual Assault” whereas Section 4 lays down the punishment for the said offence. Likewise, Part B of the said Chapter titled “Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault and Punishment therefor” contains two sections, namely, Section 5 and Section 6. The various subsections of Section 5 copiously deal with various situations, circumstances and categories of persons where the offence of penetrative sexual assault would take the character of the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Section 5(k), in particular, while laying emphasis on the mental stability of a child stipulates that where an offender commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, by taking 21 advantage of the child's mental or physical disability, it shall amount to an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.” “20. Speaking about the child, a three Judge Bench in M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N. (1996) 6 SCC 756 “1. … “child is the father of man”. To enable fathering of a valiant and vibrant man, the child must be groomed well in the formative years of his life. He must receive education, acquire knowledge of man and materials and blossom in such an atmosphere that on reaching age, he is found to be a man with a mission, a man who matters so far as the society is concerned.” 40. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.144 OF 2022), decided on 8.2.2022 has held as under:- “10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects and to achieve what has been provided under Article 15 and 39 of the Constitution to protect children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, the POCSO Act, 2012 has been enacted. Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act. By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody 22 commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure. Children are precious human resources of our country; they are the country’s future. The hope of tomorrow rests on them. But unfortunately, in our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position. There are different modes of her exploitation, including sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. In our view, exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and the society. Therefore, the children and more particularly the girl child deserve full protection and need greater care and protection whether in the urban or rural areas. As observed and held by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, children need special care and protection and, in such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. In the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, it is observed by this Court that a minor who is subjected to sexual abuse needs to be protected even more than a major victim because a major victim being an adult may still be able to withstand the social ostracization and mental harassment meted out by society, but a minor victim will find it difficult to do so. Most crimes against minor victims are not even reported as very often, the perpetrator of the crime is a 23 member of the family of the victim or a close friend. Therefore, the child needs extra protection. Therefore, no leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law.” 41. When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident. Instead, the emphasis is on allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version. In State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar (2004) 8 SCC 153 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:“ “21. 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 without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court on facts finds it difficult 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 suffice.” 24 42. On these lines, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivasharanappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 observed as follows: “17. Thus, it is well settled in law that the court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record. Needless to say as a rule of prudence, the court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from other reliable evidence placed on record. The principles that apply for placing reliance on the solitary statement of the witness, namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack of corroboration, apply to a child witness who is competent and whose version is reliable.” 43. The Supreme court in the matter of State of UP v. Sonu Kushwaha, (2023) 7 SCC 475 has held as under : “12. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6,on its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option but to impose the minimum sentence as done by the 25 Trial Court. When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence. However, we find no such provision in the POCSO Act. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent may have moved ahead in life after undergoing the sentence as modified by the High Court, there is no question of showing any leniency to him. Apart from the fact that the law provides for a minimum sentence, the crime committed by the respondent is very gruesome which calls for very stringent punishment. The impact of the obnoxious act on the mind of the victim/child will be lifelong. The impact is bound to adversely affect the healthy growth of the victim. There is no dispute that the age of the victim was less than twelve years at the time of the incident. Therefore, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court.” 44. During course of submission learned counsel for the appellant 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 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 26 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. 45. Learned counsel for the appellant during course of argument also raised objection that except victim and other interested witnesses, there are 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 the appellant guilty by the learned trial Court is not sustainable. 46. 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. 47. 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 27 [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 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 28 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 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 29 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 difficult 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 30 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 preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in 31 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 officer 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 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 32 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 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.’ 12. In State of Orissa vs. Thakara Besra [State of Orissa vs. Thakara Besra, reported in (2002) 9 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 33 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]. 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 34 held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, 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 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 35 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. 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, 36 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.” 48. 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 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., 37 reported in (2000) 5 SCC 30].” 49. In the case of Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34, the Hon’ble 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 difficulty 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 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 court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults. [See State of Punjab 38 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 difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. (See Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam [Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 635)].” 50. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidences of the victim (PW-1), the elder sister of the victim (PW-2), the mother of the victim (PW-3), the maternal grandmother 39 of the victim (PW-4), Dr. Kunti Thakur (PW-5), Assistant Sub-Inspector Mrs. Baby Nanda (PW-6) and the Principal of the victim's school (PW-7) and Admission-Discharge register (Ex.P/32C) of the victim, it is quite clear from the documentary and oral evidence presented by the prosecution on record and its analysis that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the accused/appellant. 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 on the said date, time and place, committed penetrative sexual assault 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. 51. Consequently, the conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court under Sections 506 (Part-1) and 323 of the IPC is hereby upheld. So far as the conviction under Section 376(A)(B) and 376(2) of the IPC are concerned, the same are also upheld, however, this Court is of the view that the sentence of life imprisonment till 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. 52. The appellant is stated to be in jail since 30.06.2019 being the date of arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified above. 53. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 54. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along 40 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet