High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.07.02 18:31:09 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:29708-DB NAFR CRA No. 1155 of 2021 Sanat Kumar Mehar S/o Late Shri Panchram Mehar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khamhariya Police Station Jarhagaon District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh versus Appellant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate , Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants For Respondent/State : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Shaqib Ahmed, PL Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 02/07/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25/09/2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 54/2017 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 450 of the IPC U/s 376 of the IPC R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.07.2017, a report was lodged by the Complainant/Mother of the Victim to the effect that the Victim is handicapped and dumb since childhood and she cannot speak. On Wednesday, 26/07/2017, her son Sukhnandan had gone to school. The complainant and her husband had gone to weed the field near their house. The victim/prosecutrix was alone in the house, the Complainant had locked the room of the house and the Victim was in the shed of the house. It is alleged that at around 11:00 in the day, the Complainant felt thirsty and came to her house to drink water, then she saw that the accused, after caught holding the Victim, was committing wrong thing with her. Seeing her, the appellant left the Victim. The Complainant slapped him and subsequently, told the incident to her
Legal Reasoning
husband, and thereafter, the FIR has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 450 & 376 of the IPC. During the investigation, statement of the Victim was recorded and the clothes of the Victim as well as of the appellant were seized in presence of the witnesses. Spot Map was prepared. The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Since, the Victim was dumb, on her behalf, her mother’s statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C was recorded. 3 After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 450 & 376 of the IPC. After framing the charges, the same was read over to the appellant, which he denied and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 11 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. 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 25/09/2021 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. The conviction is based on assumption and presumption. The prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement/deposition of the prosecution witnesses.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel would further submit that mother of the Prosecutrix had only seen that at the time of incident, the appellant try to commit the sexual intercourse, but he did not commit. Hence, the conviction of the appellant is bad in law and is liable to be set-aside. 6. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants and would submit that there is sufficient evidence against 4 the appellant and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence, which does not require any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. It is undisputed that the Victim is handicapped and dumb from childhood. The Victim (PW1) through sign language, pointed her finger towards the appellant, and while doing so, she touched her chest and private part and tried to disclose the Court about the incident by sign languages that the appellant sexually exploited her. 9. Mother (PW2) of the Victim (PW1) has deposed in her statement that on the date of the incident, her son had gone to the school and she along with her husband had gone to the field. The Victim was alone in the house. When she felt thirsty and went to the house, she saw that the appellant was over the Victim and was committing wrong things. Uncle (PW3) of the Victim has stated that PW2 and her husband told him that when they were in field, the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her. 10. Dr. Pramila Dau (PW10) has medically examined the Victim. She opined that the Victim was unable to speak. Her both hands and legs were thin. While examining the Victim, she found that there was an abrasion inside the right hand, size 1 X 0.5 cm. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:- 5 “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 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 6 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.” 12. 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 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 7 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.” 13. Reverting to the facts of the present case, as per the evidence of the mother (PW2) and the Victim (PW1), it is crystal clear that the appellant, on the date of incident while founding the Victim alone at the house, committed rape with her. Nothing has been brought on by the prosecution in their cross-examination. 14. The law is well settled that the prosecutrix is a Victim of, and not an 8 accomplice in, a sex offence and there is no provision in the Evidence Act requiring corroboration in material particulars of the evidence of the prosecutrix as is in the case of evidence of accomplice. (See: Ganga Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 7SCC 178) 15. Considering the entire evidence available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be safe for this Court to hold that the appellant has committed rape upon her who is handicapped and dumb. 16. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the conviction as awarded by the trial Court to the appellant is hereby upheld. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 18. It is stated that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the remaining sentence. 19. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 9 20. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the Trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri