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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
