Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Centre, Dongargaon District R
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1513 of 2019 Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi Sarwa S/o Santram Sarwa Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Jaamsarar Kala, P.S. - Dongargaon , District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Centre, Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, P.L. ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 22/04/2025 1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.') questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2019 (wrongly mentioned as 05.10.2018 in the VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.04.30 10:46:36 +0530 2 impugned judgment) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.19/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence In Default Under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 R.I. for 10 years and fine amount of Rs.5,000/- In default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for 06 months 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.03.2018, father of the
Legal Reasoning
victim (PW-1) lodged an FIR (Ex.P-2) at Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon against the accused/appellant alleging therein that, the prosecutrix used to attend computer training class in Rajnandgaon, where the appellant also used to work there. After some time period, the parents of the prosecutrix, noticed some change in the behavior of the prosecutrix, where she used to stay moony and stilly, when they asked her the reason, she narrated the whole incident, that the appellant committed sexual assault on her in the year 2016. The accused came to the victim's house in June, 2016. There was no one at the victim's house that day. The accused raped the victim and had physical relations with her against her will. When the victim said that she would tell this to her parents, the accused threatened that he had made her photos 3 and videos and would defame her family by viral the same. The victim got scared and did not narrate the incident to anyone. The accused, threatening to show the videos and photos to other people, raped the victim in July, 2017 and January, 2018 in a lodge located at the bus stand of Rajnandgaon and a lodge in Dongargarh. On the basis of said report, offence under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and under Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO”) Act was inscribed against the appellant in Crime No. 61/2018. 3. During the investigation of the crime, on 15.03.2018, after the consent of the victim's father and mother, the victim was medically examined at the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. The medical examination was conducted by Dr. Ekta Daniel (PW-13) and the victim was found to be pregnant. A sonography test was also conducted in this regard which confirmed the pregnancy of the victim and the victim was found to be six weeks and five days pregnant. The said examination report is Exhibit P.35, P.36, P.37, P.38 and P.39, P.39A. 4. On 16.03.2018, the Investigating Officer- Inspector Ashwani Rathore (PW-16), on the identification of the victim's father, reached the place of incident. A spot map was prepared Exhibit P- 4 in which the victim's house is shown as the place of incident. A 4 site map of the place of incident has also been prepared by Patwari Jiteshwari Sahu (PW-8) which is the victim's house. On the production of the victim's father, the victim's Aadhar card and high school certificate were seized by the Investigating Officer- Inspector Ashwani Rathore on 16.03.2018 as Exhibit P-5. In relation to the age of the victim, the victim's school admission register was seized from Saraswati Shishu Mandir on the production of witness Govind Ram Patel; the seizure is Exhibit P.11. The witness got the original register back and obtained the surrender letter and handed over the verified copy to the Investigating Officer. The certified copy of the admission register Exhibit P-12C is attached. As per the Dakhil Kharij register, high school mark sheet and Aadhar card, the date of birth of the victim is 20.10.2001 and on the date of incident, the victim had not attained the majority. 5. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, which is Exhibit P-25. The statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded by the Investigating Officer. The vaginal slide, underwear etc. of the victim seized in the case were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination. The receipt for depositing the material is Exhibit P-30 and the 5 examination report is Exhibit P-31. In the examination report, human sperm was not found in the vaginal slide prepared from the vagina of the victim. 6. During investigation, the accused's memorandum statement was recorded under Exhibit P-9 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and his mobile was seized and it was also sent to the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Technical Services) for investigation, but the prosecution could not submit any report as the mobile was locked. 7. Charges were framed against accused Ravindra Kumar alias Ravi Sarva under Sections 376 (2), 506 Part-2 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. On reading out the charges, the accused denied the charges and demanded trial. In the trial under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused pleaded innocence and stated that he used to stop the victim from going out with other people and took the defence of being falsely implicated to hide the victim's illegitimate pregnancy and to save social prestige. 8. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 47 documents (Exhibits P-1 to P-47). 9. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned 6 judgment dated 05.10.2019 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by him calling in question the impugned judgment. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellant. He further contended that the learned Court below erred in the eye of law while convicting the appellant as there is no seizure regarding the age certificate of the prosecutrix have been made, even the parents of the prosecutrix in their deposition have stated that no specific document was submitted while admitting the prosecutrix in her school, which makes the prosecution story corroborated. He further contended that the learned Court below made fallacy error while passing order as the mother of prosecutrix (P.W.-07) in her deposition has distinctly broached that, the prosecutrix used to talk to the appellant on phone, and just to hide the whole incident, she also didn't confiscated her mobile phone before the police authority. He further contended that the medical examiner (P.W.-13)- Dr. Ekta Daniel has specifically stated in her cross-examination that, there were no physical marks and sexual assault present on the body of 7 the prosecutrix, which makes it clear that Section 6 of the POCSO Act doesn't attract in this case. It is therefore prayed that may kindly be set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 05/10/2019 (Annexure A-1) and acquit the appellant in the above mentioned charges. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent contended that the appellant has committed a heinous crime of rape against a minor girl aged about 14 years 07 months. He further contended that the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. The first question for consideration before this Court would be, whether the trial Court is rightly held that on the date of incident, the victim was minor below the age of 18 years ? 14. When a person is charged for the offence punishable under the POCSO Act, or for rape punishable in the Indian Penal Code, the age of the victim is significant and essential ingredients to prove such charge and the gravity of the offence gets changed when the child is below 18 years, 12 years and more than 12 years. Section 8 2(d) of the POCSO Act defines the “child” which means any person below the age of eighteen years. 15. Father of the prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in his statement that at the time of incident, the victim was aged about 15-16 years. This witness has stated in his cross-examination (Para-9) that the victim's date of birth was registered by his mother-in-law now who is dead and he has not registered the date of birth of the victim in the kotwar register. 16. Govind Ram Patel (PW-3), Headmaster of the Sarswati Shishu Mandir, Kirgi PS Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, appeared in the Court and produced the original dakhil kharij register of Class One, in which the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 20.10.2001. 17. Mother of the victim (PW-7) has stated in her statement that at the time of incident, age of the victim was about 16 years. Prosecutrix (PW-11) has stated in her statement that her date of birth is 20.10.2001 and at the time of incident, she was aged about 15 years. 18. In the present case, the prosecution has presented a certified copy of the dakhil kharij register (Ex.P-12) of Class-1st and Mark-sheet of the High School, Chhattisgarh Board (Ex.P-14C), in which the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 20.10.2001. Apart from 9 this, a photo-copy of the victim’s Adhar card has been presented, in which her date of birth is also mentioned the same, i.e., 20.10.2001. With regard to confirmation of age of the victim, X-ray was conducted in the Government Medical College & Hospital, Rajnandgaon. According to the Radiology report (Ex.P- 41), age of the victim was 16-17 years at the time of incident. 19. The defence has not presented any oral or documentary evidence to refuse the said date of birth, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the date of birth of the victim, as 20.10.2001, hence, the trial Court has rightly held that the date of birth of the victim is 20.10.2001 and on the date of incident, she was minor and her age was 14 years 07 months. 20. The next question for consideration before us is whether the appellant has committed rape on minor victim? 21. In this regard, the statement of the the victim (PW-11) is most important. She stated in her statement that it was in June, 2016 that the accused Ravindra came to her house, at that time she was alone at home and the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. When she asked to tell her parents about this, the accused threatened her and said that he has made her photo and video and if she tell her parents about this, he will show her photo and video to everyone. After that in July 2017, accused Ravindra took her from her house on his scooty to a lodge in Rajnandgaon, where he 10 forcefully had sex with her. After that in January 2018, the accused took her to a lodge in Dongargarh and in February 2018 to a lodge in Rajnandgaon and forcefully had sex with her. Since then her health was not good. Seeing her parents and aunt asked her why she was not well. Then she told them that the accused Ravindra had forced himself on her and threatened her not to tell anyone that if she tell anyone he will show her photos and videos to everyone. 22. Father of the victim (PW-1) has stated that the victim was always troubled, so they questioned her. During the interrogation his wife & sister-in-law were present and she told them that there is a boy named Ravindra alias Ravi Sarva (accused) who is harassing her. Daman Sahu has a computer centre where Ravindra alias Ravi Sarva works and he raped her. The victim told him that Ravindra raped her in June 2016 and made a video of her and will defame her by showing it to other people in the society. Saying that he will defame her like this, he raped his daughter two to three times. 23. In his cross-examination (Para-19), this witness has stated that he did not go with his daughter to the Primary Health Center, Dongargaon and Rajnandgaon Hospital. His wife and sister-in-law had accompanied the victim during the medical examination. That day at 07-08 pm, victim, his wife and his sister-in-law returned to his residence in village Gunnagari Navagaon. They had told him that my daughter's X-ray and sonography tests had been done. 11 24. Aniket Meshram (PW-5), who runs a business of hotel stated in his statement that entry in the hotel’s register dated 01.01.2018 in Saral No. 3226, room No. 102, Accused- Ravindra father Santram Sahu age 25 years, victim’s room No.114, in which arrival Dongargaon, departure place Dongargaon Date 01.01.2018 time 01:30 PM, departure 01.01.2018 time 04:10 PM was mentioned, signature of accused & victim, fare Rs. 500/-, payment Rs. 500/-, check out is written. Original register is Exhibit P.19, entry in the register is made by the passenger who comes. The script of receiving the amount is of Laxmikant. Aadhaar card number 977278708690 and another Aadhaar card number 55604741XXXX (victim’s Aadhar Card number) are entered in the register. 25. Dr. Ekta Denial (PW-13), who had medically examined the victim on 15.03.2018 at about 6.40 pm, has stated that the victim was brought before her for examination by lady Constable Khemen Kore No.474, Police Station Dongargaon, Rajnandgaon. The victim came alone with the lady Constable, none of her family members came with her. Consent was taken from the victim for examination. During the examination, she found the following :- “A- Menstrual history- LMP 15.01.2018 Regular 04 to 05 days. She started having menstruation at the age of 12 years. B- Secondary sexual characteristics – Both breasts 12 were developed and there were axillary and pubic hair. C- Age estimation – Advised for X-ray to determine her age. D- General Examination- There was no sign of any external injury on the body. Height was about 05 feet and weight was 50 kg. She had a normal build. Pulse was 80 per minute, CVS, R.S., P.A.C.N.S., N.A.D was normal. E- Genital Examination- There were no signs of any external injury. There were no signs of any injury on labia, majora, minora. Vulva vagina, perineum were normal. 04 vaginal slides were made and sent for chemical examination. Hymen- Old ruptured. F- Investigation advice HB blood group, urine test, sonography, UPT were advised. During the examination she did not find any signs of immediate forceful intercourse. The examination report is Exhibit P-35.” 26. On the advise of the Dr. Ekta Denial (PW-13), the victim was subjected to Pathological and Sonography test and from perusal of the Ex.P-36, it shows that the pregnancy report of the victim was positive and Sonography report Ex.P-39 dated 16.03.2018 shows 13 that she was carrying 06 weeks 05 days pregnancy. 27. Section 6 of the POCSO Act reads as under :- “6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.-- (1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death. (2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.” 28. In the case in hand, the victim was minor below the age of 18 years on the date of incident, which has been proved by the dakhil kharij register (Ex.P-12) & Mark-sheet of Class 10th (Ex.P-14C) where her date of birth has been mentioned as 20.10.2001 and the date of incident is June, 2016 and as such, she was aged 14 years 07 months. According to the Radiology report (Ex.P-41), age of the victim was 16-17 years, at the time of incident. 29. The appellant has also not stated anything concrete in his defence except that he does not know and that he has been falsely 14 implicated. In my opinion, the above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to one conclusion that it was the accused/appellant who has committed the aforesaid crime. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and I am of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the trial Court. Since the victim was below the age of 18 years on the date of incident, hence, offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is fully proved against the appellant. 30. Since the commission of offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act has been duly proved, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. No leniency can be shown towards the appellant as he has sexually assaulted the victim aged below 18 years of age. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court against the appellant are hereby affirmed/maintained. 31. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 32. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2019 (Annexure A-1). 15 33. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant