Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
CRA No.1382 of 2024
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.07.30
14:32:51
+0530
2025:CGHC:36776-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1382 of 2024
1 - XYZ
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Manpur, District-
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate
with Shri Gajendra Kumar Sahu,
Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
2
CRA No.1382 of 2024
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J.
29.07.2025
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court (POCSO) in Spl. Cr. Case No. 10/2019 Rajnandgaon (C.G.) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section Rigorous Imprisonment for 03
363 of the years and fine of Rs. 500/- in
Indian Penal default of payment of fine
Code
additional R.I. for 01 month.
Under Section Rigorous Imprisonment for 05
366 of the years & fine of Rs. 1000/- in
Indian Penal default of payment of fine
Code
additional R.I. for 02 months.
Under Section Rigorous Imprisonment for 20
376 (3) of IPC years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-
and in default of payment of
fine additional R.I. for 6 months
Under Section Imprisonment for life its means
5 (N)/6 of the Natural Life time imprisonment
3
CRA No.1382 of 2024
POCSO Act, with fine of Rs. 20,000/- in
2012. default of payment of fine
additional R.I. for 01 years.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently
2. Brief facts of the case is that the victim (P.W./8), a 12-year-
old girl, was living in the house of the accused (in relation he is her maternal grandfather, as he is relative of her mother) and was a student at Kanya Middle School. On 08.02.2019, her brother (P.W./1) and father (P.W./9) were away for work under MANREGA. around 7:30 AM, B. Singh informed them that the accused committed wrong things with the victim. Thereafter, they rushed to the appellant's village and upon enquiry, the victim revealed that on the night of 07.02.2019 and 08.02.2019, the accused attempted to take her outside with an intent to rape her. On her cries, neighbors B.R.J. (P.W./11) and D.K. Anchala rescued her from the clutches of the accused. She also reported that the accused had raped her earlier on 30.01.2019 and again on 05.02.2019 in a jungle area. She feared she would have been raped again if not rescued. On 08.02.2019, her brother filed a written report (Ex. P/1) at Thana Manpur, based on which, FIR was registered under 4 CRA No.1382 of 2024 Sections 376(2)(F), 376(2)(N) of IPC and Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the POCSO Act. Medical examination was conducted (Ex. P/23), and other evidence such as the spot map (Ex. P/5), school records (Ex. P/6), and forensic reports were collected. The appellant was arrested on 09.02.2019.
3. After the completion of the investigation, police has filed charge sheet before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 363(2), 366(2), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4(2), 5(L), 5(n) and 6(2) of POCSO Act, 2012. The same has been read over and explained to the appellant in which the appellant has denied the charge and pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. The appellant has given statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and has not produced any witnesses for his defense.
4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses in its support. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 13.06.2024 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of 5 CRA No.1382 of 2024 this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and complaint made by the Complainant is false and baseless. He would further submit that that the judgment of the trial court is erroneous both in fact and in law. The FIR was not properly proved, and the medical evidence does not support the allegation, as the hymen was found intact, with no signs of swelling or injury. He would further submit that Neighbor D.K. Anchala, who allegedly saved the victim, had a hostile relationship with the appellant and conspired with the victim's aunt (mausi), yet neither was examined before the trial court. It was further submitted that the victim was residing in a joint family with the appellant, his son, wife, and son-in-law, making the occurrence of such an offence improbable. The age of the victim was not legally or properly established by school records, and her parents failed to provide an exact date of birth. No prosecution witness was examined to prove the earlier alleged incidents of sexual assault. The prosecution's case lacks corroboration by forensic evidence, and no witness 6 CRA No.1382 of 2024 confirmed the victim's rescue upon her cries. The entire case is based on hearsay, and the testimony of P.W./1 (the victim's brother) indicates that the victim did not narrate the incident to him. Finally, the trial court erred in relying heavily on the victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, which is only corroborative in nature and not primary evidence, therefore, the present appellant is liable to be acquitted in aforesaid offences.
6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has fully proved its case, as such, the conviction is well merited warranting no interference.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
8. The question arises before this Court, would be whether the appellant has committed rape upon her or not?
9. PW/8 prosecutrix in her court statement has deposed that the incident took place at her house two-three years ago at about 12 midnight, she was sleeping, the accused who is her maternal grandfather (relative of her mother) took her 7 CRA No.1382 of 2024 towards the forest by luring that he will buy her clothes and made her lie on the ground and made corporeal relation with her. She further deposed that when she screamed then the Sachiv came there and rescued her; thereafter she informed her parents about the incident and went with the Sachiv to file report.
In her cross- examination she has admitted that the accused was taking her to the forest to do wrong things, then Anchala who lives near the house came and saved her upon hearing the scream of the prosecutrix. She has further admitted that she did not tell about the first incident and was living normally. She has declined that a false case has been prepared on the information given by Anchala.
10. (PW-1), brother of the prosecutrix has deposed that he was called to the police Station and from there he came to know that his maternal grandfather had committed rape with his sister. He further deposed that he did not asked her sister about anything and he has no dispute with his grandfather. He admitted in his cross examination that he had lodged a written report in the police station. He declined that at 07:30 8 CRA No.1382 of 2024 morning Barsingh Usendi of Manpur came and told him that his maternal grandfather had done wrong things with his sister. He voluntarily said that he must have told his father, but he did not tell him, but in para 8 of his cross examination he has accepted that when he along with his father going to work in MNREGA, they met Barsingh Usendi and accepted that Barsingh Usendi told them that victim''s maternal grandfather had done bad things with his sister at night.
11. (PW-9) father of the prosecutrix has deposed that at the time of incident his daughter shouted, upon hearing her voice Sachiv came there, thereafter he deposed that his daughter informed about the incident to him and also stated that the accused took her to the forest twice and raped her once, subsequently along with Sachiv he went to lodge the report.
12. (PW-11) Chhaganlal Taram has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident, he was sleeping in his house; when his neighbour Dilip Anchala woke him up and said that a girl is crying lets' go and see, then he went to the house of the accused and saw that the victim was crying. On being asked 9 CRA No.1382 of 2024 victim has stated that her maternal grandfather takes her towards the forest, on asking why he takes her there the victim started crying loudly. Thereafter they informed the police.
13. D.K. Anchala is not examined before the before the learned trial Court.
14. Dr. Seema Thakur (PW/4) who conducted the medical examination of the victim, stated in her statement that after examining the victim, she did not find any mark of struggle that should have been made during commitment of rape on her private parts or on any part of her body. She opined that the sexual characteristics of the victim were not fully developed. She further opined that the victim's hymen was not torn and if a 12 years old girl has been sexually abused 3 times, then in the said situation her hymen will be torn. She has not given any opinion regarding the immediate forceful intercourse with the victim. As per the FSL report (Ex.P/25) , no human sperm was found in the Exhibits A, B, C, D and E.
15. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the 10 CRA No.1382 of 2024 prosecutrix. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the prosecutrix must inspire full confidence of the Court. The testimony of Prosecutrix (PW/8) does not inspires full confidence of this Court regarding the allegations of rape and the same cannot be made basis for convicting the accused/appellant.
16. As discussed above with regard to the truthfulness of the evidence of the victim (PW-8), when examined by the medical evidence of (PW-4) Dr. Seema Thakur and medical report (Ex. P/7), it shows that there is no external and internal injury over the body of the victim, which could lead to the conclusion that the victim was raped and Doctor has not given any opinion regarding the immediate forceful intercourse with the victim. As per the FSL report (Ex.P/25), no human sperm was found in the Exhibits A, B, C, D and E.
17. Before addressing the issues, we consider it appropriate to revisit the law laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the weight to be attached to the testimony of the victim in matters involving sexual offences where the prosecution's 11 CRA No.1382 of 2024 case hinges on the victim's evidence-a scenario central to the present case.
18. Law is well settled that generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.: (i) wholly reliable;
(ii) wholly unreliable; (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the Court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the Court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence.
19. In Ganesan v. State1, the Supreme Court held that the sole testimony of the victim, if found reliable and trustworthy, requires no corroboration and may be sufficient to invite conviction of the accused.
20. The Supreme Court was tasked to adjudicate a matter involving gang rape allegations under section 376(2)(g), I.P.C in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 the Court found totally conflicting versions of the prosecutrix, from what was stated 1 (2020) 10 SCC 573 2 (2012) 8 SCC 21 12 CRA No.1382 of 2024 in the complaint and what was deposed before Court, resulting in material inconsistencies. Reversing the conviction and holding that the prosecutrix cannot be held to be a 'sterling witness', the Court opined as under:
"22. In our considered opinion, the `sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and calibre 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 13 CRA No.1382 of 2024 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 quilty 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 14 CRA No.1382 of 2024 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."
(underlining ours, for emphasis)
21. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana3, the Supreme Court laid down that although the victim's solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offences is generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix's testimony is found unreliable and insufficient due to identified flaws and lacunae. It was held thus:
"31. No doubt, it is true 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 3 (2011) 7 SCC 130 15 CRA No.1382 of 2024 quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offences.
32. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to get her evidence corroborated independently, which they could have done either by examination of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were present in the house at the time of her alleged abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was not examined and later given up by the public prosecutor on the ground that she has been won over by the appellant."
22. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis 16 CRA No.1382 of 2024 of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a "sterling witness" without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistencies excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution's case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.
23. In view of foregoing, this Court does not find the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-8) to be natural and truthful & the same is not sufficient to hold the accused/appellant guilty. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of course has to go to the appellant.
24. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused/appellant is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2024 passed by the Additional 17 CRA No.1382 of 2024 Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), POCSO, Rajnandgaon, is set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him extending benefit of doubt.
25. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
26. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
27. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Rahul/Shoaib