Chattisgarh High Court
Ravindra Kumar Bareth vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
MANPREET
KAUR
2026:CGHC:18364-DB
AFR
Digitally signed
by MANPREET
KAUR
Date: 2026.04.25
19:33:23 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 281 of 2024
Ravindra Kumar Bareth S/o. Late Suresh Kumar Bareth, Aged About 23
Years R/o Ward No. 4, Baradwar Road, Sakti, Police Station Sakti,
District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir
Champa, Now District Sakti Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Rishabh
Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A.
CRA No. 413 of 2024
Yuvraj Sahu S/o Late Raghunandan Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o
Ward No. 4, Bajarpara, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. (Now This
Time District Sakti)
—Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Sakti, Dist. Janjgir-
Champa, C.G. (Now This Time District Sakti)
— Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A.
2
CRA No. 470 of 2024
Vickky Sagar S/o Shri Paramanand Sagar Aged About 30 Years R/o
Ward No. 04, Sakti P.S. Sakti, Dist. Sakti, C.G.
—Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Sakti, Dist. Janjgir-
Champa (Now Dist. Sakti), C.G.
— Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ
22.04.2026
1. Since the aforesaid three criminal appeals have been filed
against the impugned judgment dated 16.01.2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge (FTSC), Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.29/2023, they were clubbed &
heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Today, these matters have been listed for hearing on I.A. No.
01/2024 which are application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the respective appellants. However, with the
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals
are being heard finally.
3. The appellants have been convicted for the offences as under:
3
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 366 of Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years
the IPC. and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount, additional R.I.
for 06 months.
Under Section 376D Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years
of the IPC. and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of
payment of fine additional R.I. for 01
year.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.05.2023, the
daughter of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the
“victim”), after having dinner, had gone for a walk outside her
house. It is alleged that at about 09:30 PM, while she was
outside, accused Yuvraj Sahu approached her, induced her to
accompany him, and made her sit on his motorcycle. At that time,
co-accused Ravindra Bareth was also present on the said
motorcycle.
5. It is further the case of the prosecution that both the accused
persons took the victim to a place near Bandhava Pond at
Kanchanpur, where they subjected her to forcible sexual assault.
Upon her return home at around 11:30 PM, the victim disclosed
the incident to her family members.
6. On the basis of a written complaint (Ex.P-4) submitted by the
complainant at Sakti Police Station, FIR bearing No. 136/2023
(Ex.P-5) was registered against the accused persons under
4
Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO
Act), and investigation was set into motion.
7. During the course of investigation, the statement of the victim was
recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by
a woman police officer, and subsequently, her statement under
Section 164 CrPC was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class (Ex.P-1).
8. On the basis of the material collected, offences under Sections
363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the
POCSO Act were also invoked, as it was found that the accused
persons, along with co-accused Vicky Sagar, had enticed and
taken the victim away and committed sexual assault upon her.
9. The victim was medically examined with due consent, and her
medical examination report was prepared (Ex.P-14). Similarly, the
accused persons Ravindra Bareth, Yuvraj Sahu, and Vicky Sagar
were also subjected to medical examination, and their reports
were marked as Ex.P-12, Ex.P-13, and Ex.P-16, respectively.
10. During investigation, a spot map was prepared by the
Investigating Officer (Ex.P-3), and a site plan was also prepared
by the Patwari (Ex.P-28). Various articles were seized, including
biological samples and clothing of the victim, under seizure memo
(Ex.P-17). The motorcycle allegedly used in the commission of
the offence, bearing registration No. CG-11 BB/9853, was seized
5
vide Ex.P-15. The undergarments of accused Yuvraj Sahu and
Ravindra Bareth were seized under Ex.P-18 and Ex.P-19,
respectively. Relevant documentary evidence, including revenue
records, was also seized (Ex.P-7).
11. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
Upon completion of the investigation and finding sufficient
material against the accused persons, a charge-sheet was filed
before the competent Court under the aforementioned provisions.
12. Charges were framed against the accused persons under
Sections 363, 366, and 376D of the Indian Penal Code, as well as
Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The contents of the
charges were read over and explained to the accused, who
denied the same and claimed to be tried.
13. In order to establish the charge against the appellants, the
prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 33
documents. The statements of the appellants under Section 313
of CrPC were also recorded in which they denied the material
appearing against them and stated that they are innocent and
they have been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation
of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has
convicted the accused/appellants and sentenced them as
mentioned in para 2 of the judgment. Hence, these appeals.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 281/2024 submits
that the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2024 is
6
illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, and is therefore liable to
be set aside. It is contended that the learned trial Court has failed
to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and
has recorded findings which are perverse and unsustainable,
particularly in light of the medical evidence. The conviction is
stated to be based on conjectures and surmises, without the
prosecution having established its case beyond reasonable
doubt. It is further submitted that the testimony of the victim is not
reliable, as it suffers from material contradictions, omissions, and
embellishments, and is not corroborated by other prosecution
evidence or by medical findings. Learned counsel submits that
the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as her deposition before the
Court, are inconsistent and indicative of exaggeration. It is also
contended that the medical evidence, particularly the testimony of
PW-8 (Dr. Soumya Jain) and the report (Ex.P-14), does not
support the allegation of forcible sexual assault, and no
conclusive medical opinion has been rendered in that regard.
Emphasis is laid on the fact that several prosecution witnesses,
including the parents of the victim, have not supported the
prosecution case and have been declared hostile, thereby
weakening the prosecution version. It is further argued that the
prosecution has failed to conclusively establish that the victim
was a minor on the date of the incident, rendering the conviction
under the provisions of the POCSO Act unsustainable. Learned
7
counsel also submits that the circumstances on record indicate
that the victim had accompanied the appellant voluntarily, and no
alarm was raised either at the time of the alleged incident or
thereafter, even when she was dropped near her residence,
thereby supporting the defence of consent. It is contended that
the investigation suffers from serious infirmities, as reflected in
the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-11). In totality, it is
urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond
reasonable doubt and that the appellant has been falsely
implicated. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported
in 2020 (3) SCC 443 to contend that conviction cannot be
sustained in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence. It is
lastly submitted that the appellant has remained in custody since
14.05.2023, which may also be taken into consideration.
15. Learned counsel for appellant in CRA No. 470/2024 submits that
the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court
are flawed, improper, and contrary to the evidence available on
record. It is contended that the name of the present appellant
does not find mention in the written complaint lodged by PW-12,
nor in the First Information Report, despite the fact that the victim,
along with her parents and PW-12, was present at the police
station at the relevant time. It is further submitted that even
though PW-03 and PW-12 are projected as material witnesses by
the prosecution, neither of them named the present appellant at
8
the earliest point of time. Learned counsel argues that the victim,
for the first time, introduced the name of the present appellant
during her deposition before the Court, thereby materially
improving and altering her earlier version. It is also contended
that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure does not contain any allegation
against the present appellant, indicating a significant omission
which goes to the root of the prosecution case. Attention is drawn
to the inconsistencies in the version of the victim, particularly with
regard to the presence of her parents at the time when she was
allegedly taken away, as well as the absence of any such
narration in the FIR or in the statements of her parents, including
PW-01 (mother), who has admitted that neither she nor her
husband witnessed the incident or identified the accused
persons. It is further submitted that the victim stated that she had
first informed PW-12 about the incident; however, PW-12 has not
supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.
Learned counsel also assails the reliance placed by the trial
Court on the testimony of the victim in the absence of
corroboration, especially when the medical evidence, as deposed
by PW-08 (Medical Officer), does not indicate any conclusive
finding of penetrative sexual assault and records absence of
injuries on the private parts. It is contended that the conviction is
based solely on the uncorroborated and inconsistent testimony of
the victim, along with the report (Ex.P-32) indicating presence of
9
seminal traces on certain garments, which by itself is insufficient
to sustain conviction in the absence of reliable and cogent
evidence connecting the present appellant to the alleged offence.
On these grounds, it is urged that the prosecution has failed to
establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and
the conviction deserves to be set aside.
16. Learned counsel for appellant in CRA No. 413/2024 submits that
the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2024 is bad in law,
illegal, perverse, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of
the case, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended
that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant in
the absence of cogent, reliable, and legally admissible evidence
establishing his involvement in the alleged offence. Learned
counsel submits that there is no positive evidence to prove that
the appellant committed sexual assault upon the victim, and that
the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of
the offences under the POCSO Act. It is further argued that the
statements of the prosecution witnesses suffer from material
contradictions, omissions, and improvements, and thus do not
inspire confidence so as to warrant conviction. Attention is drawn
to the alleged inconsistencies in the version of the victim,
including her statement that one accused contacted another
through a mobile phone, despite no such device having been
seized during investigation, as well as allegations of unnatural
sexual assault without any corresponding charge having been
10
framed under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also
contended that the medical evidence, particularly the testimony of
PW-08 (Dr. Soumya Jain), does not support the prosecution
case, as the medical report does not indicate any conclusive
signs of sexual assault and records absence of injuries
suggestive of forcible intercourse, except for a solitary injury on
the back for which no opinion regarding its duration has been
given. Learned counsel further submits that, considering the
alleged time frame of the incident, it appears improbable that the
occurrence, as narrated by the victim, could have taken place in
the manner alleged, thereby casting serious doubt on the
prosecution case. It is also argued that no alarm was raised by
the victim during the alleged incident, which further weakens the
prosecution version. Placing reliance on general principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the standard
of proof in offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,
it is contended that in the absence of clear and convincing
evidence establishing commission of the offence, the conviction
cannot be sustained. On these grounds, it is urged that the
appellant has been falsely implicated and is entitled to acquittal.
17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and
submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned trial Court is well-reasoned,
legally sound and based on proper appreciation of the entire
11
evidence available on record, and thus warrants no interference
by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. It is contended
that the testimony of the victim (PW-2) is clear, consistent and
inspires full confidence, as she has categorically narrated the
manner in which she was taken away and subjected to sexual
assault by the accused persons. It is further submitted that her
statement finds due corroboration from her statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-1) and Section 164 Cr.P.C.
(Ex.P-1), as well as from the prompt lodging of the FIR (Ex.P-5).
Learned State counsel emphasizes that it is a settled principle of
law that conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the
victim, if it is found to be reliable and trustworthy, and that minor
discrepancies or omissions, which do not go to the root of the
case, are liable to be ignored. It is further argued that the forensic
report (Ex.P-32), which confirms the presence of seminal stains
and human sperm on the samples and clothing of the victim,
lends strong scientific corroboration to her version, thereby fully
establishing the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
18. It is further submitted that the defence has failed to elicit any
material contradiction in the testimony of the victim so as to
discredit her version, and the alleged inconsistencies pointed out
are trivial in nature and attributable to normal variations in human
recollection. Learned counsel contends that the medical evidence
(Ex.P-14), though not conclusive in itself, does not in any manner
negate the prosecution case, and it is well settled that absence of
12
injuries or a definite medical opinion is not sufficient to discard
otherwise reliable ocular testimony. It is also submitted that
merely because some of the witnesses have turned hostile, the
prosecution case does not fail, particularly when the core version
is consistently established through the victim and corroborated by
other evidence on record. Learned State counsel therefore
submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence in its proper perspective, correctly applied the settled
principles of law, and has recorded findings of conviction which
are neither perverse nor contrary to record, and hence the
present appeals, being devoid of merit, deserve to be dismissed.
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record with utmost circumspection.
20. The first question that arises for consideration before this Court is
whether the victim was child on the date of incident.
21. Upon due consideration of the evidence on record and the
findings returned by the learned trial Court, this Court finds that
the trial Court has undertaken a detailed appreciation of the
material pertaining to the age of the victim, including the school
records (Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10) and the oral testimonies of the
relevant witnesses. The trial Court has assigned cogent reasons
for holding that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish the
date of birth of the victim beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in
view of the inconsistencies in the statements of the parents and
13
the victim, as well as the absence of clarity regarding the basis of
the entries in the school records. Having independently examined
the said reasoning, this Court does not find any perversity,
illegality, or material irregularity in the conclusion arrived at by the
learned trial Court. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial
Court on the issue of age is affirmed.
22. The next question for consideration is whether, on the date, time,
and place of the incident i.e. 13.05.2023 at about 09:30 PM within
the jurisdiction of Police Station Sakti, the accused persons,
acting in furtherance of their common intention, enticed and took
the victim from the lawful custody of her guardian and thereafter
subjected her to sexual assault, including commission of gang
rape/penetrative sexual assault, as alleged by the prosecution?
23. In view of the finding already recorded that the prosecution has
not conclusively established the age of the victim as being below
18 years, the applicability of Section 363 IPC and the provisions
of the POCSO Act does not survive for consideration. The issue
that now arises is whether the accused persons abducted the
victim against her will and, thereafter, subjected her to sexual
assault, including gang rape, within the meaning of Sections 366
and 376D of the Indian Penal Code.
24. Upon a comprehensive and careful re-appreciation of the entire
oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court
proceeds to examine the testimonies of the prosecution
14
witnesses along with the exhibits proved, in order to determine
whether the findings recorded by the learned trial Court call for
any interference.
25. The testimony of the victim (PW-2) assumes central importance
in the present case. She has deposed in clear and unequivocal
terms that on the night of the incident, while she was sitting
outside her house after dinner, the accused persons came and
took her to a secluded place near the pond. She has further
stated that she was subjected to sexual assault by the accused
persons one after another, against her will and without her
consent. The narration given by her is detailed, consistent and
inspires confidence. It is noteworthy that her statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-1) as well as her statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-1) substantially corroborate her
deposition before the Court on all material particulars. Though
certain variations have been pointed out by the defence regarding
naming of accused or minor aspects of the incident, such
discrepancies are natural and do not go to the root of the matter.
The core of her testimony, namely that she was taken to a
secluded place and subjected to sexual assault by the accused
persons, remains unshaken. Her evidence, therefore, carries a
ring of truth and can safely be relied upon.
26. The evidence of PW-3, the father of the victim, also lends support
to the prosecution case. He has stated that on the night of the
15
incident, his daughter was taken away by certain persons on a
motorcycle and upon her return, she disclosed that she had been
subjected to sexual assault. He has proved the written complaint
(Ex.P-4) and the First Information Report (Ex.P-5), though he
admitted that being illiterate, the contents were written by the
police personnel. However, he has clarified that the report was
based upon the narration made by his daughter. Though there
are certain inconsistencies in his deposition, particularly with
regard to the names of the accused persons, the same do not
materially affect the prosecution case, as his testimony
corroborates the factum of the victim being taken away and her
subsequent disclosure regarding the incident.
27. The testimony of PW-1, the mother of the victim, though not
wholly supportive, cannot be completely discarded. She has, in
her examination-in-chief, expressed lack of knowledge regarding
the incident and was declared hostile. However, during her cross-
examination by the prosecution, she admitted that the victim had
informed about being taken away and subjected to sexual
assault. At the same time, in cross-examination by the defence,
she stated that she had not witnessed the incident. The learned
trial Court has rightly observed that her responses indicate a lack
of clarity and understanding. In such circumstances, her evidence
is to be read cautiously and relied upon only to the extent it
supports the prosecution case, particularly the fact that the victim
returned home and a report was lodged.
16
28. The prosecution has also examined PW-4, the Head Teacher,
who produced the school records including the Dakhil Kharij
Register (Ex.P-9) and Tatima Form (Ex.P-10), which were seized
vide seizure memo (Ex.P-7) pursuant to written communication
(Ex.P-6). However, this witness has candidly admitted that he
was not posted at the school at the time of admission of the
victim and could not state the basis on which the date of birth was
recorded. In view of such admission, the evidentiary value of
these documents for determining the exact age of the victim
becomes doubtful, and the learned trial Court has rightly
appreciated the same.
29. The medical evidence assumes significance and has been
proved through PW-8, Dr. Soumya Jain, who conducted the
medical examination of the victim and proved her report (Ex.P-
14). She found that the victim was physically normal, with a torn
hymen and a scratch mark on the back, though no external
injuries were found on the private parts. She opined that no
definite opinion regarding recent sexual intercourse could be
given and advised forensic examination of the collected samples.
In cross-examination, she admitted absence of injuries on the
genital parts and anus. However, it is well settled that absence of
injuries does not negate the occurrence of sexual assault,
particularly when the testimony of the victim is otherwise credible.
17
30. The forensic evidence, in fact, provides strong corroboration to
the prosecution case. The report of the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory (Ex.P-32) clearly indicates the presence of
seminal stains and human sperm on the vaginal swabs, slides
and clothing of the victim. This scientific evidence establishes that
there was sexual intercourse, and significantly supports the
version of the victim that she was subjected to such act by the
accused persons.
31. The prosecution has further examined Dr. G.B. Singh (PW-7),
and Dr. Ravindra Sidar (PW-10), who conducted the medical
examination of the accused persons and proved their respective
reports (Ex.P-12, Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-16). Both witnesses have
opined that the accused persons were capable of performing
sexual intercourse, and no abnormality was found in them. This
evidence rules out any possibility of incapacity on the part of the
accused and lends further assurance to the prosecution case.
32. The testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-11), establishes
the procedural aspects of the investigation. He has proved
various documents including consent memos (Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-
6), seizure memos (Ex.P-15, Ex.P-17, Ex.P-18 and Ex.P-19), and
the spot map (Ex.P-3). His evidence demonstrates that the
investigation was conducted in accordance with law, and the
material exhibits were duly seized, sealed and sent for forensic
18
examination. Nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-
examination to discredit the investigation.
33. It is true that Prakash Sindhur (PW-12), did not support the
prosecution case and was declared hostile. However, it is well
settled that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be rejected
in toto, and in any case, the non-support of this witness does not
affect the core of the prosecution case, which stands firmly
established through the consistent and reliable testimony of the
victim, duly corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.
34. Thus, on a cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, this Court finds that the testimony of the victim is
trustworthy and inspires confidence, and the same stands
corroborated by the surrounding circumstances, medical
evidence and forensic report. The minor inconsistencies and
contradictions pointed out by the defence are not of such nature
as to discredit the prosecution case in its entirety. The learned
trial Court has meticulously analysed the evidence and has
arrived at a well-reasoned conclusion. This Court does not find
any perversity or illegality in such appreciation of evidence
warranting interference.
35. 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
19
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 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 (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…”.
36. 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
20
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 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 molestations. This position
was highlighted in State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh (1996 (2)
SCC 384).
37. 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
21
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 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 prosecutrix 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
22
a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court
should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
38. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v.
State of NCT of Delhi, 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
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
23every 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.”
39. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nawabuddin v. State of
Uttarakhand (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.144 OF 2022), decided on
8.2.2022 has held as under:-
“10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects and to
achieve what has been provided under Article 15 and
39 of the Constitution to protect children from the
offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, the
POCSO Act, 2012 has been enacted. Any act of
sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children
should be viewed very seriously and all such offences
of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children
have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no
24leniency should be shown to a person who has
committed the offence under the POCSO Act. By
awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with
the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a
message must be conveyed to the society at large
that, if anybody commits any offence under the
POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or
use of children for pornographic purposes they shall
be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown
to them. Cases of sexual assault or sexual
harassment on the children are instances of perverse
lust for sex where even innocent children are not
spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure.
Children are precious human resources of our
country; they are the country’s future. The hope of
tomorrow rests on them. But unfortunately, in our
country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position.
There are different modes of her exploitation,
including sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. In our
view, exploitation of children in such a manner is a
crime against humanity and the society. Therefore, the
children and more particularly the girl child deserve
full protection and need greater care and protection
whether in the urban or rural areas. As observed and
held by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan
v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, children need
special care and protection and, in such cases,
responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more
onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to
these children. In the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union
of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, it is observed by this
Court that a minor who is subjected to sexual abuse
25needs to be protected even more than a major victim
because a major victim being an adult may still be
able to withstand the social ostracization and mental
harassment meted out by society, but a minor victim
will find it difficult to do so. Most crimes against minor
victims are not even reported as very often, the
perpetrator of the crime is a member of the family of
the victim or a close friend. Therefore, the child needs
extra protection. Therefore, no leniency can be shown
to an accused who has committed the offences under
the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same
is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law.”
40. When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual
offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost
accurate account of the incident. Instead, the emphasis is on
allowing the victim to provide her version based on her
recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to
recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free
from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that
version. In State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar (2004) 8 SCC
153 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:”
“21. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of
having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an
accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that
her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in
material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal
than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is
injury on the physical form, while in the former it is
physical as well as psychological and emotional.
26
However, if the court on facts finds it difficult to accept
the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may
search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which
would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance,
short of corroboration, as understood in the context of
an accomplice, would suffice.”
41. On these lines, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivasharanappa
and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 observed
as follows:
“17. Thus, it is well settled in law that the court can rely
upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form
the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful
and is corroborated by other evidence brought on
record. Needless to say as a rule of prudence, the
court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from
other reliable evidence placed on record. The
principles that apply for placing reliance on the solitary
statement of the witness, namely, that the statement is
true and correct and is of quality and cannot be
discarded solely on the ground of lack of
corroboration, apply to a child witness who is
competent and whose version is reliable.”
42. The Supreme court in the matter of State of UP v. Sonu
Kushwaha, (2023) 7 SCC 475 has held as under :
“12. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more
stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse
of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments
have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the
27POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults
on children. Hence, Section 6,on its plain language,
leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no
option but to impose the minimum sentence as done
by the Trial Court. When a penal provision uses the
phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts
cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser
sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless
there is a specific statutory provision enabling the
Court to impose a lesser sentence. However, we find
no such provision in the POCSO Act. Therefore,
notwithstanding the fact that the respondent may have
moved ahead in life after undergoing the sentence as
modified by the High Court, there is no question of
showing any leniency to him. Apart from the fact that
the law provides for a minimum sentence, the crime
committed by the respondent is very gruesome which
calls for very stringent punishment. The impact of the
obnoxious act on the mind of the victim/child will be
lifelong. The impact is bound to adversely affect the
healthy growth of the victim. There is no dispute that
the age of the victim was less than twelve years at the
time of the incident. Therefore, we have no option but
to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court
and restore the judgment of the Trial Court.”
43. Section 376D Gang rape: Where a woman is raped by one or
more persons forming a group or acting in furtherance of a
common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to
have committed the offence of rape.
28
44. As per above, gang rape as defined in section 376D and the facts
and circumstances of the case fully satisfy the fact that each of
the accused has directly contributed to the commission of this
crime.
45. Upon an anxious and independent re-appreciation of the entire
evidence on record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court
has undertaken a thorough, reasoned and legally sustainable
analysis of both oral and documentary evidence. The findings
recorded are based on proper appreciation of the testimony of the
victim (PW-2), duly corroborated by the medical evidence (PW-
14), the forensic report (Ex.P-32), and other attending
circumstances. The defence has not been able to point out any
material illegality, perversity, or misreading of evidence which
would warrant interference by this appellate Court. Minor
discrepancies or variations, as highlighted by the appellants, do
not go to the root of the prosecution case and are insufficient to
discredit an otherwise cogent and reliable version of the victim.
46. This Court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of the
victim is natural, consistent on material particulars, and inspires
full confidence. The same stands fortified by scientific evidence,
particularly the FSL report (Ex.P-32), which conclusively
establishes the presence of seminal stains and human sperm on
the samples collected. The medical evidence, though not
showing extensive external injuries, does not negate the
29
occurrence of sexual assault, especially in light of settled legal
principles that absence of injuries is not determinative. The
prosecution has thus successfully established that the victim was
subjected to sexual assault by the accused persons acting in
concert.
47. The learned trial Court has rightly held that though the
prosecution failed to conclusively establish the minority of the
victim, thereby disentitling application of provisions under the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 363
IPC, the evidence on record clearly proves beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused persons abducted the victim with intent to
commit illicit sexual intercourse and thereafter committed gang
rape upon her against her will and without her consent, thereby
attracting the provisions of Sections 366 and 376D of the Indian
Penal Code.
48. The legal position governing appreciation of evidence in cases of
sexual assault, as discussed hereinabove, clearly mandates that
the testimony of the victim, if found reliable and trustworthy, can
form the sole basis of conviction. In the present case, the victim
satisfies the test of a wholly reliable witness, and her version
stands corroborated by surrounding circumstances and scientific
evidence. The findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court are thus
fully in consonance with settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence.
30
49. This Court is also mindful of the gravity and heinous nature of the
offence. The act committed by the accused persons is not merely
an offence against an individual, but an affront to the dignity and
bodily integrity of a woman. The manner in which the offence has
been perpetrated reflects a complete disregard for human dignity
and societal norms. Crimes of such nature require a stern judicial
response so as to uphold the rule of law and to send a clear
message that such acts shall not be tolerated.
50. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled position of law,
this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial
Court, convicting the appellants under Sections 366 and 376D of
the Indian Penal Code, are well-founded, legally sustainable and
do not call for any interference.
51. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby
dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the
appellants by the learned trial Court are affirmed in totality.
Consequently, all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
52. It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are in jail. They shall
serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.
53. 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
31
informing them 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 Court Legal Services
Committee.
54. 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/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
32
HEAD NOTE
Where the prosecution fails to conclusively establish the minority
of the victim, the provisions of the POCSO Act may not be
attracted. However, if the evidence on record, particularly the
consistent and trustworthy testimony of the victim, duly
corroborated by medical evidence (MLC) and forensic science
laboratory (FSL) report indicating presence of seminal stains and
human sperm on the victim’s body and clothing, establishes that
she was abducted and subjected to sexual assault by multiple
accused acting in furtherance of a common intention, conviction
under Sections 366 and 376D IPC is fully sustainable. Absence of
injuries or a conclusive medical opinion does not negate the
offence, and each accused, being part of the group, is
constructively liable for the act of gang rape irrespective of
individual role.