Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Yadav Alias Sanil vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1 / 25
2026:CGHC:18592-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1865 of 2022
Sunil Yadav Alias Sanil S/o Shri Dharmendra Yadav Aged About 23
Years R/o Village Pandra Pathra, Outpost- Belgahna, Police Station
Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ratanpur, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate
(Through Legal Aid)
For State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, PL
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
23/04/2026
1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant through legal aid. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned
Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the
Digitally
signed by
ASHUTOSH
ASHUTOSH MISHRA
MISHRA Date:
2026.05.04
17:55:45
+0530
2 / 25impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
24.09.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second
Fast Track Special Court, Bilaspur, C.G., in Special Criminal Case
(POCSO Act) No.83 of 2019, by which the appellant has been convicted
and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of the Indian R.I. for 07 Years and fine of Penal Code Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for four months
Under Section 366 of the Indian R.I. for 10 Years and fine of
Penal Code Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of
fine additional imprisonment for Six
months
Under Section 5(g)/6 of Protection Life Imprisonment, till natural
of Children From Sexual Offences death, and fine of Rs.2000/- in
Act, 2012 default of payment of fine, one
year additional imprisonment
All the sentences shall run
concurrently.
3. pCase of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25/05/2019, the
complainant/informant, the mother of the victim, lodged an oral report
before the Police Station Ratanpur to the effect that on 24/05/2019 at
6:00 pm, her daughter, the victim, aged about 14 years, had gone to
buy vegetables from the weekly market in the village. She returned
home with the vegetables. At 8:00 pm, after asking her, she went to buy
some household articles. When she did not return, they searched the
neighborhood but could not find her. When the complainant was at
3 / 25
home at night, at that time she heard the sound of someone falling near
the door. She and her elder daughter went out and opened the door.
They found her daughter, the victim, lying unconscious near the door,
with blood-like stains visible on her clothes. She was then taken to
Ratanpur Hospital for treatment. When the treatment of the victim was
going on after some time, when the victim, regained consciousness, she
recounted the incident. She said three unidentified men on a motorcycle
approached her from behind, gagged her, forced her onto the
motorcycle, took her to the woods near Kekati Plot, and raped her one
by one. She would recognize them by sight. Before she could reveal
their names, she fainted again. On the report of the complainant, a
Dehati Nalishi was registered under Crime No. 0/19 under Section 363,
376D IPC and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act. On the basis of the said
Dehati Nalishi, a First Information Report was registered against an
unknown person in Police Station Ratanpur by registering Crime No.
200/2019 under Section 363, 376D IPC and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act.
Statements of witnesses were recorded in the case. The accused was
arrested and they were put to test Identification parade which was
carried out by the Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, after complete
investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 22/07/2019 under Section
363, 376D and Section 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 against the accused persons.
4. Charges against the accused persons under sections 363/34,
366/34, 376DA of the Indian Penal Code and sections 5 (g)/6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were framed and
4 / 25
read them out to the accused persons, the accused persons denied the
charges and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution examined as many as
23 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. Statements of the accused
persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which
they denied the circumstances and pleaded that they have been falsely
implicated in the offence. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant
who have committed aforesaid offence, convicted and sentenced him in
the aforementioned manner. The co-accused could not be identified by
the victim, therefore, the co-accused Yogesh Kumar Porte @ Malu has
been acquitted from the alleged offences. Against the conviction and
sentence the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the accused/appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court
is contrary to law and facts on record and is liable to be set aside. He
would next submit that with regard to identification of the appellant,
which goes to the root of the prosecution case, the Victim (PW-3), in her
cross-examination, has clearly stated that at the time of the incident, her
face was covered by the accused persons and therefore she could not
see or identify them. This version finds corroboration from the testimony
of PW-2 (mother of the victim), who has deposed that the victim
informed her that the accused persons had covered her face, due to
5 / 25
which she was unable to recognize them. Learned counsel submits that
once the victim herself admits that she could not identify the accused
persons at the time of occurrence, her subsequent identification of the
appellant becomes doubtful and unsafe to rely upon. It is further argued
that the Test Identification Parade (Ex. P/2) does not inspire confidence,
as the very basis of identification is shaken by the admission of the
victim that she could not see the faces of the accused persons. The TIP,
therefore, loses its evidentiary value. Learned counsel further contends
that even in her Court statement, the victim has made contradictory
versions regarding identification. On one hand stating that she knew
the appellant earlier, and on the other hand admitting that she could not
identify the persons who committed the offence. Such material
contradictions go to the root of the case and render her testimony
unreliable. It is also submitted that no independent witness has been
examined to establish the identity of the appellant at the scene of
occurrence, and the prosecution case rests solely on the inconsistent
testimony of the victim. Therefore, he would submit that when identity
of the accused is doubtful, conviction cannot be sustained, particularly
in a case involving serious charges. It is further argued that the learned
trial Court has failed to properly appreciate these material contradictions
and has erroneously convicted the appellant. Therefore, it is prayed that
the appellant be given the benefit of doubt, the conviction and sentence
be set aside, and the appeal be allowed.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits
6 / 25
that the prosecution has proved its case beyond the reasonable doubt
and the evidence led by the prosecution are sufficient to hold guilty
against the appellant. She would next submit that the victim was minor
on the date of incident which has been proved by the School record and
the said School record has been proved in accordance with law. She
would next submit that the victim suffered a gang rape committed by the
accused persons and the appellant has been duly identified by the
victim in test identification parade. She would next submit that the
injuries have been found on the private part of the victim and the semen
and sperm were found on the underwear of the victim and her vaginal
slide further confirms that she suffered the alleged act of gang rape.
She would next contend that the evidence of the victim alone is
sufficient to convict the appellant for the alleged offence, therefore, the
learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted
the appellant for the offence in question, which needs no interference.
8. 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.
9. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the appellant
relates to the identity of the accused, particularly on the ground that the
victim had stated that her face was covered at the time of the incident,
thereby rendering her identification doubtful. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the State has supported the findings of the trial Court by
7 / 25
contending that the victim was previously acquainted with the appellant
and has duly identified him, and that her testimony stands corroborated
by medical as well as scientific evidence. In light of the rival
submissions and upon perusal of the evidence available on record, the
following points arise for determination in the present appeal.
10. The first question arises for consideration is whether the victim
was a minor on the date of incident?
11. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-8,
Headmaster of the School, who proved the School Register (Article-A)
and the Certificate (Ex. P/10). PW-8 has stated in his evidence that he
was the In-charge Headmaster of the School and the Police has seized
the School Register (Article-A) from him vide seizure memo Ex.P/9.
After retaining its attested true copy, the original was returned back to
the School. As per the School Register, the date of birth of the victim is
06/06/2003 and she was admitted in the School in Class-1 on
06/07/2009. He proved his signature over the said School Register
(Article -A), which was brought with him before the Court. In cross-
examination he admitted that he is the author of the School Register
and the relevant entries with respect to the date of birth of the victim
have been made by him though he stated that the basis on which the
date of birth of the victim has been recorded in the School Register he
is not in know about the same. But the fact remains that he is the
author of the School Register
12. The incident has occurred on 24/05/2019 whereas the victim have
8 / 25
got admitted in the School on 06/07/2009 i.e. much prior to the date of
incident and no one can apprehend that she may have suffered an
incident so that her age may be reduced to take benefit of the same.
The School Register has duly been proved by its author PW-8.
13. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7
SCC 263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding principles
for determining the age of a child, which read as follows :
“22. On the issue of determination of age of a minor,
one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007
Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been
framed under Section 68(1) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12
referred to hereinabove reads as under :
“12. Procedure to be followed in determination of
Age.? (1) In every case concerning a child or a
juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or
as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule
19 of these rules shall determine the age ofsuch
juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law
within a period of thirty days from the date of making
of the application for that purpose.
(2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the
Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of
the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the
juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis
of physical appearance or documents, if available,
and send him to the observation home or in jail.
(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in
9 / 25conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall
be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the
case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by
obtaining –
(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if
available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school(other
than a play school) first attended; and in the absence
whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or(iii) of
clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought
from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will
declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact
assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or
the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for
the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if
considered necessary, give benefit to the child or
juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side
within the margin of one year and, while passing
orders in such case shall, after taking into
consideration such evidence as may be available, or
the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a
finding in respect of his age and either of the
evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i),(ii), (iii)
or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the
conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or
the juvenile in conflict with law.
(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in
conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the
date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive
proof specified in sub- rule (3), the court or the Board
10 / 25or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing
pass an order stating the age and declaring the
status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of
the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall
be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.
(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or
otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of
section7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no
further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the
Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or
any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule
(3) of this rule.
(6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also
apply to those disposed off cases, where the status
of juvenility has not been determined in accordance
with the provisions contained in sub- rule(3) and the
Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the
Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the
juvenile in conflict with law.”
23. Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to
determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we
are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision
should be the basis for determining age, even for a
child who is a victim of crime. For, in our view, there
is hardly any difference in so far as the issue of
minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with
law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore,
in our considered opinion, it would be just and
appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to
determine the age of the prosecutrix VW-PW6. The
manner of determining age conclusively, has been
expressed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above.
Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is
11 / 25
ascertained, by adopting the first available basis, out
of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in
the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is
expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding
effect over an option expressed in a subsequent
clause. The highest rated option available, would
conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the
scheme of Rule 12(3),matriculation (or equivalent)
certificate of the concerned child, is the highest rated
option. In case, the said certificate is available, no
other evidence can be relied upon. Only in the
absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages
consideration of the date of birth entered, in the
school first attended by the child. In case such an
entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth
depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and
conclusive, and no other material is to be relied
upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule12(3)
postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a
corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat.
Yet again, if such a certificate is available, then no
other material whatsoever is to be taken into
consideration, for determining the age of the child
concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively
determine the age of the child. It is only in the
absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3)
postulates the determination of age of the concerned
child, on the basis of medical opinion.
24. Following the scheme of Rule 12 of the 2007
Rules, it is apparent that the age of the prosecutrix
VW – PW6 could not be determined on the basis of
the matriculation (or equivalent) certificate as she
had herself deposed, that she had studied upto class
12 / 25
3 only, and thereafter, had left her school and had
started to do household work. The prosecution in the
facts and circumstances of this case, had
endeavoured to establish the age of the prosecutrix
VW-PW6, on the next available basis, in the
sequence of options expressed in Rule 12(3) of the
2007 Rules. The prosecution produced Satpal
(PW4), to prove the age of the prosecutrix VW –
PW6. Satpal (PW4) was the Head Master of the
Government High School, Jathlana, where the
prosecutrix VW – PW6 had studied upto class 3.
Satpal (PW4) had proved the certificate Exhibit-PG,
as having been made on the basis of the school
records indicating, that the prosecutrix VW – PW6,
was born on 15.5.1977. In the scheme contemplated
under Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules, it is not
permissible to determine age in any other manner,
and certainly not on the basis of an option mentioned
in a subsequent clause. We are therefore of the view,
that the High Court was fully justified in relying on the
aforesaid basis for establishing the age of the
prosecutrix VW – PW6. It would also be relevant to
mention, that under the scheme of Rule 12 of the
2007 Rules, it would have been improper for the High
Court to rely on any other material including the
ossification test, for determining the age of the
prosecutrix VW-PW6. The deposition of Satpal-PW4
has not been contested. Therefore, the date of birth
of the prosecutrix VW – PW6 (indicated in Exhibit
P.G., as 15.7.1977) assumes finality. Accordingly it is
clear, that the prosecutrix VW-PW6, was less than 15
years old on the date of occurrence, i.e., on
25.3.1993. In the said view of the matter, there is no
13 / 25
room for any doubt that the prosecutrix VW – PW6
was a minor on the date of occurrence. Accordingly,
we hereby endorse the conclusions recorded by the
High Court, that even if the prosecutrix VW-PW6 had
accompanied the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh of
her own free will, and had had consensual sex with
him, the same would have been clearly
inconsequential, as she was a minor.”
14. The prosecution has further relied upon the evidence of Dr.
Suresh Tiwari (PW-11), who conducted the ossification test of the victim.
As per the ossification test of the victim vide Ex. P/15, she was found
between 14 to 16 years of age. In his cross-examination the only
suggestion given by the witness that there may be variation of 2 years
on either side, however, in view of the school record and the evidence
of the victim and her mother, the victim cannot be considered to be
more than 18 years of age on the date of incident.
15. The second question arises for consideration is whether the
appellant abducted the victim and committed sexual assault upon her?
16. The victim (PW-3) has stated in her evidence that she knew the
appellant by name and face after the incident. On the date of incident
when she had gone to the shop to purchase grocery item and when she
returned back in the way two persons came on their motorcycle, gagged
her mouth, covered her face and took her towards the canal where they
committed rape upon her. She went unconscious and blood was oozing
out from her private part. The persons who took her towards the canal
and committed rape upon her, one of them is the present appellant
14 / 25
Sunil Yadav, which she knew by their conversation. Both the two
persons after commission of rape threw the victim on the door of her
house and thereafter her family members took her to the hospital.
17. The victim identified the appellant Sunil in TIP which was
conducted at Ratanpur Tehsil Court. During the recording of her
evidence, the victim also identified the appellant Sunil before the Court.
She proved the TIP memo Ex. P/2. She further stated that in the TIP
she could not identify the other accused and the TIP memo of other
accused is Ex. P/3. In cross-examination she stated that the persons
who took her towards the canal, she could not see them as they
covered her face and the same has been disclosed to the police also.
Though certain discrepancies have come on her evidence with respect
to identification of the appellant Sunil Yadav but she re-affirmed that she
identified the appellant Sunil. She denied the suggestion that the
appellant Sunil has not committed rape upon her.
18. From the over all evidence of victim, the defence could not extract
any material to disbelieve her evidence that she was not subjected to
gang rape by two persons although the other accused Yogesh could not
be identified by her but she firmly stated that she was kidnapped by two
persons and gang rape raped by them.
19. Sunil Agrawal (PW-15 ), Executive Magistrate, who conducted the
test identification parade of the accused persons at sub-tehsil Ratanpur,
he stated in his evidence that pursuant to the memo dated 26/05/2019
sent by the Police Station, Ratanpur, he conducted the test identification
15 / 25
parade of the accused Yogesh Porte, but the victim did not identify him
and the TIP memo Ex. P/3 was prepared. He further stated that on
26/05/2020 at 1.30 PM the test identification parade of the accused
Sunil was conducted in presence of the witness Jagat Maravi and
Premlata and the victim identified Sunil, his TIP memo is Ex. P/2. In
cross-examination he firmly stated that he mixed the accused Sunil with
the other persons wherein the victim identified the accused by raising
her hand towards him. From the TIP Ex. P/2 it clearly reveals that the
victim has duly identified the accused Sunil Yadav. From the evidence
of the victim (PW-3), Executive Magistrate Sunil Agrawal (PW-15 ) and
the TIP memo Ex. P/2, the identification of the appellant Sunil is proved
unerringly that he was the person who committed offence with the
victim.
20. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Poonam Singh (PW-7),
who stated in her evidence that on 25/05/2019 she medically examined
the victim wherein she found that fresh blood was coming out from
vagina. A small fresh tear present at 6 o’clock at introitus. Hymen
attenuated and congested. Blood clots removed from vagina.
Lacerated wound present in right lateral post wall of vagina. Abrasion
and congestion present in cervix. She further opined that the sexual
assault has been done. Injuries in private part are fresh and within 24
hours of reporting time. For age confirmation and for confirmation of
stains present on her clothes, she referred for FSL examination. In her
cross-examination she denied the suggestion that the injuries found on
the body of the victim may have also been caused while falling on the
16 / 25
ground. She admitted that she did not find any external injuries on back
or waist of the victim.
21. From the evidence of the Dr. Poonam Singh (PW-7) the fact that
the victim was subjected to rape has been established as there are
three injuries found on her private part with bleeding and she has clearly
opined that she was subjected to sexual intercourse.
22. The allegation leveled by the victim has further been corroborated
by the FSL report Ex. P/32 in which semen and sperm were found on
the underwear of the victim Article C; vaginal slide of the victim Article F;
and underwear of the appellant Article J and blood was found on the
clothes of the victim. Thus, the evidence of the victim against the
appellant Sunil have duly corroborated and connected with each other
and her evidence is supported by the medical evidence.
23. PW-2, mother of the victim, has stated in her evidence that on the
date of incident the victim had gone to purchase some snacks in the
shop and when she did not return for a considerable time then the
family members started searching her. At about 12 o’clock in the night
they heard the noise outside the house and when they opened the door
she saw her daughter in unconscious condition. She wore the jeans
pant and blood was coming out from her private part. They informed
the police through the dial 112 and thereafter the victim was taken to the
hospital. When the victim regained her conscious she stated that she
was being taken by three persons on motorcycle by covering her face
and gagged her mouth and she was taken towards the canal where
17 / 25
rape was committed with her. She also disclosed that she could identify
the persons who committed the offence. She denied that her daughter
has not informed about any incident.
24. From the evidence of this witness the fact that in the night her
daughter was missing and after a considerable time she was found
outside her house, blood was oozing out from her private part and she
was unconscious which duly corroborates with the evidence of the
victim as well as the medical evidence. The evidence of the victim
further found support from the evidence of Dr. Vijay Kumar Chandel
(PW-10), who medically treated the victim when she was taken to
hospital. This witness stated in his evidence that on 25/05/2019 at
about 5.15 AM the victim was brought before him and she was not in a
position to say anything. Blood was oozing out from her private part
and then he informed the incident to the police. He gave primary
treatment thereafter referred her to the District Hospital for further
treatment. When the victim came with the specific allegation that on the
date of incident the accused persons committed rape upon her because
of which she went unconscious and they threw her infront of her house,
her evidence was duly corroborated with the evidence of this witness
also, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence.
25. The last question arises of consideration is whether the conviction
of the appellant is sustainable in law?
26. On overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the
testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-3) is cogent, reliable and inspires
18 / 25
confidence. It is duly corroborated by Medical evidence (PW-7, Ex.
P/07), Scientific evidence (FSL report Ex. P/32), Statement under
Section 164 CrPC (Ex. P/33), Identification evidence (Ex. P/2). The
learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and recorded
a well-reasoned finding. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under
Sections 363, 366 IPC and Sections 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act is found
to be fully justified and does not call for interference.
27. Having recorded findings on the issues arising for determination,
this Court finds it appropriate to reiterate the settled principles governing
appreciation of evidence in cases of sexual assault. The approach of
the Court must be sensitive and realistic, keeping in view the nature of
the offence and the social context in which it occurs. It is in this context
that the evidentiary value of the testimony of the prosecutrix assumes
great significance.
28. In the Indian society refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of
sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult
to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society
of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident
which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be
conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society and when in
the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt
assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. Just as a
witness who has sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to
be self-inflicted, is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to
19 / 25
exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex offence is
entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. A
woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not
the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. The observations of
Vivian Bose, J. in Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan, reported in
(AIR 1952 SC 54) were:
“The rule, which according to the cases has hardened
into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential
before there can be a conviction but that the necessity
of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except
where the circumstances make it safe to dispense
with it, must be present to the mind of the judge….”
29. Crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the
increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women’s rights in all
spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad
reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the
violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must
remember that a rapist not only violates the victim’s privacy and
personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as
physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault – it
is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer
destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul
of the helpless female. The Court, therefore, shoulders a great
responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must
20 / 25
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
victim, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable
prosecution case. If evidence of the victim 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 victim 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 molestation. This position was highlighted in State of Punjab v.
Gurmeet Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384.
30. A victim 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 interested in the outcome of the charge
levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it
21 / 25
can act on the evidence of the victim. 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 victim 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 victim must necessarily depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. But, if a victim 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 victim does not have a strong motive to falsely involve
the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in
accepting her evidence.
31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjit Hazarika v.
State of Assam, reported in AIR 1998 SC 635 has held that the
evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the
evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. It
must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual
assault is not an accomplice to the crime, but is a victim of another
person’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence
with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an
accomplice.
22 / 25
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @
Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 held as
under:-
“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
23 / 25supporting 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 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 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.”
33. On a careful appraisal of the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-3),
this Court finds that she has consistently deposed regarding the role of
24 / 25
the appellant in taking her away and committing sexual assault upon
her. Her testimony is natural, cogent and inspires confidence. The fact
that she was acquainted with the appellant lends further assurance to
her identification. Her version stands substantially corroborated by her
earlier statements as well as surrounding circumstances brought on
record. The aforesaid testimony finds due corroboration from the
evidence of PW-2 (mother) and other prosecution witnesses. The age of
the victim stands duly proved by documentary evidence i.e. school
records (Ex. P-8, P-9, P-10), establishing that she was below 18 years
of age on the date of the incident. The medical evidence of PW-7
(doctor), including MLC report, indicates findings consistent with recent
sexual assault. Further, the FSL report (Ex. P-32) and DNA report lend
strong scientific corroboration to the prosecution case by confirming
presence of biological material linking the occurrence. The chain of
circumstances, thus, stands complete and unbroken.
34. In view of the aforesaid evidence, this Court is satisfied that the
prosecution has been able to establish that the victim, being a minor
aged about 15 years, 11 months and 18 days, was subjected to sexual
assault by the appellant. The defence has failed to create any
reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Minor inconsistencies, if any,
do not go to the root of the matter.
35. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has
succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the
appellant. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Sections
25 / 25
363, 366 IPC and Sections 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act is affirmed. The
sentence imposed is also found to be just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and calls for no interference. The present
appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
36. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out
the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.
37. Registry is directed to 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.
38. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted
to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
SD/- SD/-
SD/- SD/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ashu
