Chattisgarh High Court
Bharat Tandi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 June, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:26558-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1011 of 2024
Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar S/o Late Pyare Lal Sagar Aged About 40 Years
(Third Gender), Resident Of Near Ram Mandir, Chandra Shekhar Lodhi Para,
Raipur Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh At Present Resident Of Shitla Para,
Mahila Sagar Ward Dani Tola, P.S. Kotwali, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahant Kumar Jayswal, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General
CRA No. 1390 of 2024
Bharat Tandi S/o. Chitru Tandi Aged About 69 Years R/o. Katabhanji, Dist. –
Balangir (Odisha), Present R/o. Tarun Nagar, Lodhipara, P.S.- Civil Lines,
Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
—Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through – Police Station – Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt.
Raipur (C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General
2
CRA No. 1170 of 2024
1 – Dayalu Tandi S/o Bhuvanav Tandi Aged About 59 Years R/o Katabhanji,
Dist. Balangir (Odisha) Present Address- Shakti Nagar, P.S. – Civil Lines,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 – Bharat Tandi (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 05-09-2024.
—Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
{Cause Title Taken from Case Information System}
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.P.S.Bhatia, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
30/06/2026
1. Heard Mr. Mahant Kumar Jayswal, Mr. M.P.S.Bhatia, and Mr.
Akhand Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the respective
appellants. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional
Advocate General for the State/respondent.
2. Today, these matters have been listed for hearing on IA No. 1/2024,
which are the applications for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the respective appellants. However, with the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, these matters are being
heard finally.
3. Challenge in these appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 {now Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023} is to the judgment of conviction and
3
order of sentence dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Raipur,
District Raipur, in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 56/2020, by
which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction under Jail Sentence Fine Default
Section Jail
Sentence
(Rigorous)
Appellant-Dayalu Tandi
376AB of the Indian Penal Life imprisonment for Rs. 2000/- 4 months
Code (for short, the IPC) the remainder of
and Section 5(k)(l)(m)/6 natural life.
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) Appellant-Bharat Tandi
Section 376AB of the IPC Life imprisonment for Rs. 2000/- 4 months
and Section 5(k)(l)(m) / 6 the remainder of
of the POCSO Act natural life
Appellant-Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar
Section 376AB (ab) of the Life imprisonment for Rs. 2000/- 4 months
IPC and Section 6 of the the remainder of
POCSO Act natural life
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the Superintendent of the
Government Girls’ Home, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Mrs. Ratna Dubey
(PW-2), submitted a written complaint at Police Station Civil Lines
along with the counselling reports of the victim dated 10.01.2020,
15.01.2020, and 06.02.2020, and a copy of the order of the Child
Welfare Committee, Raipur, stating that the victim, aged 09 years,
had been admitted to the institution pursuant to the order dated
08.01.2020 of the Child Welfare Committee, Raipur. After her
admission, her counselling was conducted. According to the
4
information received during counselling, an unknown person residing
near the drain at Shakti Nagar, Raipur, and a third-gender person
near the District Hospital, Raipur, attempted to sexually exploit the
girl. Thereupon, on 18.02.2020, Police Station Civil Lines registered
First Information Report (Exhibit P-12) against the unknown person
and the third-gender person under Section 376AB of the IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and took up the offence for
investigation. During the course of the investigation, a spot map of the
place of occurrence was prepared. A written requisition was sent to
the Tehsildar, Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur, for the
preparation of a site plan of the place of occurrence. Upon a written
requisition being sent to the Principal of the victim’s school, the
school admission/ discharge register was produced by him. The
same was seized in the presence of witnesses, and after comparing
its certified copy with the original, the certified copy was annexed to
the case record, while the original register was returned on
Supurdnama. The statement of the victim was recorded under
Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. The victim was also counselled
before the Child Welfare Committee. The statements of the witnesses
were recorded as narrated by them. Seizure proceedings were
carried out, and upon it being found during the investigation that the
accused persons had committed forcible sexual intercourse with the
victim and had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault
upon her, accused Dayalu Tandi and Bharat Tandi were arrested,
and information regarding their arrest was given to their family
members. The victim was medically examined, and the clothes of
accused Dayalu Tandi and Bharat Tandi were also examined. The
victim’s vaginal slide and the underwear of accused Dayalu Tandi
5
and Bharat Tandi were seized and sent to the State Forensic Science
Laboratory for chemical examination, and the report received
therefrom was annexed to the case record. Upon completion of the
entire investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial
Court against accused Dayalu Tandi and Bharat Tandi under Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. As
accused, the third-gender person Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar,
could not be traced, a charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of the
Cr.P.C. was prepared and submitted before the learned trial Court.
During the course of the trial, the third-gender person Shankar Sagar
@ Bijli Sagar was arrested, and a supplementary charge-sheet was
filed against him.
5. Charges were framed against accused Dayalu Tandi and Bharat
Tandi under Sections 376AB and 376(2)(j) of the IPC and Sections
5(l), 5(m), 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Charges were
also framed against accused Shankar Sagar @ Bijli Sagar under
Section 376AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The
charges were read over and explained to the appellants, who denied
the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution, in support of its case and to bring home the offence,
has examined as many as six witnesses namely the victim (PW-1),
Smt. Ratna Dubey (PW-2), school teacher of the victim (PW-3), Dr.
Smt. Sonam Deshmukh (PW-4), Smt. Rajnish Ratre (PW-5) and Sub
Inspector, P. Anuradha Rao (PW-6) and exhibited as many 43
exhibits.
7. Upon the examination of the appellants under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., the appellants stated that they were innocent, had been
falsely implicated, and did not wish to adduce any evidence in
6
defence.
8. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record,
convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused as detailed in the
opening paragraphs of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals by
the appellants/convict.
9. At the outset, Mr. Akhand Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Bharat Tandi, submits that the said appellant has expired
on 27.12.2025. In support of the said submission, Mr. Akhand has
produced a copy of the death certificate of Bharat Tandi, which is
taken on record. As such, the appeal {Cr.A. No. 1390/2024} in
respect of appellant-Bharat Tandi, stands abated and we proceed to
decide the appeals in respect of other two appellants namely
Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar and Dayalu Tandi.
10. Mr. M.P.S.Bhatia as well as Mr. Mahant Kumar Jayaswal, learned
counsel appearing for the appelants-Dayalu Tandi and Shankar
Sagar @ Bijali Sagar submits that the appellants have been falsely
implicated in this case. The learned trial Court failed to consider that
there is no eye witness to the incident. Above all, there is no
conclusive proof to hold that the victim was below the age of 12 years
on the date of incident as there is no ossification test report. The
victim, in the first three counselling, did not name any of the
appellants nor disclosed their identity, the Government Girls Home
had no authority to conduct the identification parade, the police did
not conduct any test identification parade, above all, there was no
injuries found other body of the victim and no semen stains or sperms
were found in the clothes/ undergarments of the victim. Hence, the
appellants be given the benefit of doubt and they be acquitted of the
charges. It is lastly argued by learned counsel for the appellants that
7
the learned trial Court has awarded the sentence of life imprisonment
till the remainder of natural life which is too harsh and a lenient view
should have been taken by the learned trial Court.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned counsel appearing for
the State/respondent submits that the learned trial Court was fully
justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants as above. There
are ample evidence on record to hold the conviction of the appellants.
The victim being a mentally challenged girl has in a clear and
categorical terms has deposed against the appellants and in an
offence of such nature, there would hardly be any eye witness or any
direct evidence. The appellants have committed a henious offence of
rape against a minor girl aged 9 years and that too, who is mentally
challenged. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by
the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
13. In this case, neither the victim nor her parents lodged any report
regarding the incident. When the victim was kept in the Government
Girls’ Home and was subjected to several counselling sessions, she
disclosed the incident from time to time, whereupon the
Superintendent of the Girls’ Home lodged a report at the Police
Station.
14. So far as the age of the victim is concerned, the prosecution has
placed reliance on the documentary evidence, namely, the victim’s
school admission/discharge register (Exhibit P-15) wherein the
victim’s date of birth is recorded, as well as the medical examination
8
report and the oral testimony of the other prosecution witnesses, for
proving the age of the victim (PW-1). The Investigating Officer, Sub-
Inspector P. Anuradha Rao (PW-6), deposed that during the course
of the investigation she had issued a written requisition (Exhibit P-13)
to the Principal of the victim’s school for production of the school
admission/discharge register. Pursuant thereto, the admission/
discharge register (Exhibit P-15) and its certified copy (Exhibit P-
15C) were seized and the original register was returned on
Supurdnama (Exhibit P-16). The Assistant Teacher of the victim’s
school (PW-3) deposed that, as per the seizure memo (Exhibit P-14),
the police had seized the school admission/discharge register. This
witness stated that, as recorded in the school admission/discharge
register (Exhibit P-15) and its certified copy (Exhibit P-15C), the
victim’s date of birth was entered as 01.06.2012, the date of her
admission to the school was 27.06.2019, and she was admitted to
Class I. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that all the
particulars entered in the said register at the time of the victim’s
admission were based upon the information provided by the Girls’
Home. She further admitted that the staff of the Girls’ Home had not
produced the victim’s birth certificate or any other document relating
to her age. The victim’s parents had not come to the school at the
time of her admission. Whatever entry regarding the victim’s date of
birth was made in the register was made solely on the oral
information given by the authorities of the Girls’ Home. The
Superintendent of the Girls’ Home, Mrs. Ratna Dubey (PW-2),
deposed that she did not possess any document relating to the
victim’s age and, therefore, could not state the victim’s exact age or
date of birth. According to her, the victim appeared to be about 8-9
9
years of age. The victim herself had stated that she was 9 years old.
The order passed by the Child Welfare Committee also mentioned
her age as 9 years, and it was on that basis that she stated the
victim’s age to be 9 years. The victim (PW-1), during her testimony
before the Court stated that she was 11 years of age. The testimony
of the Assistant Teacher of the victim’s school and the
Superintendent of the Girls’ Home, Ratna Dubey (PW-2), confirms
that no document relating to the victim’s date of birth was available
prior to her admission to the school. Therefore, the date of birth of the
victim recorded in the school admission/discharge register (Exhibit P-
15) was entered merely on an estimate. Hence, the learned trial Court
rightly arrived at a finding that the victim’s date of birth recorded as
01.06.2012 in the admission/discharge register was not her actual
date of birth.
15. Dr. Sonam Deshmukh (PW-4), who medically examined the victim
after the incident, also recorded the victim’s age as 9 years in her
medical examination report (Exhibit P-17A). In the said report, she
noted that the victim’s secondary sexual characteristics were not
developed according to her age; her breasts were not developed, she
had not attained menarche, and her dentition was recorded as
6+6/6+6. In her cross-examination, admitted that she had recorded
the victim’s age as 9 years in her medical examination report on the
basis of the information provided by the doctor of the Girls’ Home.
She further admitted that, prior to conducting the medical
examination, she had not seen any document relating to the victim’s
age, and that the requisition for medical examination did not contain
any request for age determination. She also admitted that she had not
conducted an ossification test of the victim. However, she deposed
10
that, on the basis of the examination conducted by her, the victim’s
age would be less than 12 years. Although no ossification test of the
victim was conducted during the investigation and the Investigating
Officer did not seek any opinion from the Doctor regarding the victim’s
age, the medical examination report recorded the physical findings
that the victim had not attained menarche, her breasts were not
developed, her secondary sexual characteristics had not developed,
and her dentition was 6+6/6+6. These medical findings corroborate
that the victim was a girl below 12 years of age.
16. The learned trial Judge has rightly observed that the victim was a
child who earned her livelihood by begging, and it cannot be
expected that such a child would possess or produce a birth
certificate or any other document relating to her date of birth.
Although the date of birth entered in the school records has not been
proved to have any authentic basis, and it is possible that the date of
birth recorded in the school admission and withdrawal register is not
the victim’s actual date of birth, the physical findings recorded in the
medical examination report appear to constitute the determinative
basis for assessing her age, and those findings have not been
rebutted.
17. The Counsellor of the Girls’ Home, Mrs. Rajneesh Ratre (PW-5), who
conducted the victim’s first counselling on 10.01.2020, second
counselling on 15.01.2020, and third counselling on 06.02.2020,
deposed that during the first counselling dated 10.01.2020, the victim
did not disclose any incident or name of any specific person during
the interaction with her. However, during the counselling conducted
on 15.01.2020, the victim informed her that she was experiencing
pain in her breasts. Thereafter, the institution made further inquiry
11
from the victim, in which the victim stated that she had been
subjected to sexual exploitation by two elderly men and one third
gender person. However, the victim did not disclose the name or
address of any such person. The counselling report of the victim
dated 15.01.2020 (Exhibit P-23) records that the victim disclosed that
some unknown outside elderly persons and certain unidentified third
gender person had made attempts to sexually assault and sexually
exploit her. It is further recorded that the identity details of the said
unknown persons were not known. The counselling report dated
10.01.2020 (Exhibit P-24) does not record any facts relating to the
incident as stated by the victim. However, in the counselling report
dated 15.01.2020 (Exhibit P-23), it is recorded that the victim stated
that an unknown elderly man and a third gender person had made
physical advances towards her and attempted to sexually exploit her.
Further, in the counselling report dated 06.02.2020 (Exhibit P-22), it
is also recorded that the victim stated that a certain elderly man and a
third gender person had sexually exploited her, and that the third
gender person resides near the District Hospital, Raipur, while the
elderly man’s house is near Shakti Nagar drain. Mrs. Rajneesh Ratre
(PW-5), who conducted the victim’s counselling, further deposed that
when the victim disclosed the incident of her exploitation during the
counselling dated 06.02.2020, they went along with the police on
07.02.2020 to the place of occurrence. The witness stated that the
victim took them to “Jeevan Complex,” where she pointed out the
place where accused Bharat Tandi had committed the offence
against her, and also took them to his house and identified the
accused. Thereafter, the victim took them to the house of appellant-
Dayalu Tandi near Lodhipara Chowk, where the accused was
12
identified. Subsequently, the victim was taken to the house of
accused Shankar, where he was not found present. After
identification of the place of occurrence, the police advised that, since
the matter was outside their territorial jurisdiction, it should be
reported to Police Station, Civil Lines.
18. The Superintendent of the Girls’ Home, Mrs. Ratna Dubey (PW-2),
deposed that the written complaint (Exhibit P-7) was sent by her to
the Police Station on 06.02.2020. On the basis of the said complaint,
FIR (Exhibit P-12) was registered at Police Station Civil Lines,
Raipur, against an unknown elderly person and an unknown third-
gender person.
19. The deposition made by the victim in the present case is clear and
unambiguous. Though the victim is mentally challenged but she was
found to have answered the queries made by the learned trial Court in
a proper way and as such, her deposition cannot be discarded. She
has clearly stated that the appellant-Dayalu Tandi had committed
wrong acts against her while she was returning from fair. On the date
of incident, the appellant Dayalu asked as to where she was going
and he followed her. She was taken to an abandoned place where he
caught her breast an tried to commit rape upon her. She has clearly
deposed as to how the appellant sexually exploited her. She further
states that few days later, the guard of the complex, i.e. the appellant
Bharat Tandi also sexually exploited her. With respect to the
appellant-Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar, she stated that she was
acquainted with the said person who had committed rape upon her.
In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has clearly
named the appellant-Dayalu Tandi, Bharat Tandi and a third gender
person and also clearly narrated as to how these three persons
13
exploited her sexually.
20. Dr. Mrs. Sonam Deshmukh (PW-4), in her medical examination report
(Exhibit P-17A), recorded that the victim’s hymen was torn and
healed. The medical examination report also led to the conclusion
that the victim was a girl below 12 years of age. In her cross-
examination, she deposed that if the hymen had ruptured due to
riding a bicycle, there would also have been injuries to the external
genitalia, namely the labia majora and labia minora. She denied the
suggestion that the hymen of a nine-year-old girl could rupture merely
by riding a bicycle or by running. The witness further stated that, in a
nine-year-old girl, the hymen is situated internally, and therefore it is
not probable for the hymen to rupture as a result of riding a bicycle,
running, or similar activities. The said witness has opined that there
were signs of penetration present but no sign of recent sexual
intercourse could be found and its confirmation would depend upon
the chemical analysis of the slides.
21. No reason could be assigned by the appellants as to why the victim,
who is a minor girl and is also mentally challenged, would falsely
implicate the appellants herein. The victim is a mentally disabled girl
below 12 years of age belonging to an impoverished family that
survived by begging. In such circumstances, merely because she did
not disclose the names of the accused persons during the initial three
counselling sessions, no adverse inference can be drawn against the
prosecution unless the victim’s testimony is otherwise contradicted by
other evidence.
22. The victim was admitted to the Girls’ Home on 09.01.2020, and her
medical examination was conducted on 19.02.2020, that is,
approximately one month and ten days after her admission to the
14
Girls’ Home. During this intervening period, she would have bathed
several times and would have urinated and defecated on multiple
occasions. Therefore, where the medical examination of the victim
was conducted approximately three and a half months after the
incident, the absence of injuries on her body and the non-detection of
human sperms in the chemical examination report do not lead to the
conclusion that no sexual assault had been committed upon the
victim.
23. Further, the medical examination of the victim did not reveal any
injuries on her body or genital region. However, where the medical
examination was conducted approximately three and a half months
after the incident, the absence of injury marks on her body or genitalia
does not necessarily imply that no sexual assault had taken place.
Medical evidence is corroborative in nature and not substantive
evidence.
24. In the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573, the Supreme
Court observed and held that that there can be a conviction on the
sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the
prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her
evidence is of sterling quality.
25. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, {(2019)
11 SCC 575}, it was observed and held that as a general rule, if
credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony,
without corroboration. It was further observed and held that sole
testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on
basis of assumptions and surmises.
26. In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, {(2018) 18 SCC
15
34}, the Supreme Court observed that testimony of the victim is vital
and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking
for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty
to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict
an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to
be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her
statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases
amounts to adding insult to injury.
27. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases
(supra) to the facts of the case on hand and as observed herein
above, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or
trustworthiness of the victim. She is found to be reliable and
trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the
conviction of the accused even relying upon the sole testimony of the
victim can be sustained. The view taken by the learned trial Court that
the appellants are the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact
based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that
in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the
learned trial Court.
28. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond
reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any
legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of
the appellant/convict. We uphold the judgment of conviction passed
by the learned trial Court.
29. So far as the sentence part is concerned, while the gravity of the
offence cannot be understated and the victim’s dignity and bodily
integrity deserve the highest degree of protection, sentencing is
16
required to be proportionate to the facts and circumstances of each
individual case. The sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of
the appellants’ natural life is reserved for cases where the
aggravating circumstances are of such exceptional nature as to
justify the maximum punishment prescribed by law. Upon an overall
consideration of the facts and circumstances on record, we do not
find the present case to fall within that category. At the same time, the
offence is undoubtedly serious and warrants the imposition of a
stringent custodial sentence.
30. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are of
the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately
served by modifying the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder
of the appellants natural life to rigorous imprisonment for a period of
twenty years. The jail sentence is modified accordingly. The fine
imposed by the learned trial Court and the sentence in default of
payment thereof shall remain unaltered.
31. The appellants/convicts – Shankar Sagar @ Bijali Sagar and Dayalu
Tandi are stated to be in jail. They shall serve out the sentence as
modified by this Court in the preceding paragraph.
32. Accordingly, the appeals i.e. Cr.A. No. 1011/2024 and Cr.A. No.
1170/2024 stand partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
33. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned
Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing the jail
term, to serve the same on the appellants informing him that they are
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
17
Court Legal Services Committee.
34. 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/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
Digitally signed by
AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2026.07.03
17:07:44 +0530
