[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 79/2021

CNR: RJHC020340632021 | URN: CRLAD / 143U / 2021

Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Jal, Aged About 29 Years,

R/o Village Devaliya P.S. Renwal Dist. Jaipur

----Appellant

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chitrank Sharma

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Punia, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Judgment

1. Date of conclusion of arguments 31/08/2026

2. Date on which the judgment

was reserved 31/08/2026

3. Whether the full judgment or only the

operative part is pronounced Full Judgment

4. Date of pronouncement 08/09/2026

Per: Praveer Bhatnagar, J

1.This appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment dated

21.12.2019 passed in the Sessions case number 6/18 (37/15) in

FIR Number 754/2014, Police Station Harmada, Jaipur, whereby

the appellant has been convicted & sentenced under Sections 363

and 366 (a) of the IPC and under Sections 5(m)/6 of the POCSO

Act. The appellant has been sentenced for the aforesaid offences

as follows:-

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (2 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

Offences

under

Section

Punishment

imposed

In default of payment of

fine to further undergo

363 IPC 7 years rigorous

imprisonment with

fine of Rs.10,000/-

Additional 3 months Simple

Imprisonment

366 (a) IPC10 years rigorous

imprisonment with a

fine of Rs.20,000/-

Additional 6 months Simple

Imprisonment

5(m)/6

POCSO Act

Life Imprisonment

with a fine of

Rs.1,00,000/-

Additional 1 year Simple

Imprisonment

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

2.The basic facts of the case are that on 27.12.2014, the

complainant, PW-7 ‘X’, submitted a report at the scene of the

incident, Chak Jaitpura, stating that an unknown person had left

his daughter, ‘R’, aged 6 years, in a bloody state at Chak Jaitpura.

He received the information from an unknown person. When he

went there, he saw that his daughter, “R”, was terrified and blood

was coming out of her underwear. It is further stated in the report

that his daughter left home for the fields in the morning when a

man lured her away who after kidnapping, committed rape on her

and dumped her at Chak Jaitpura. The report also mentions that

her daughter, ‘R’, was at home at 11 a.m., and she left the home

with three or four copies, a mobile phone, a newspaper, and a

magazine; however, she did not reach the fields. Someone

kidnapped her midway.

3.A case was registered at Police Station Harmada under FIR

No. 754/2014, for the offence under sections 363 and 376 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and the

investigation was conducted. After the necessary investigation, a

charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant Mahesh

Kumar Sharma, on 15.02.2015, for the offence under Section 376

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (3 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

(2) (H) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5 (m)/6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4.The accused appellant was charged with offences under

Sections 363, 366(a), and 376(2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution examined 33

witnesses, and in defence, the appellant accused was examined as

DW1.

5.The learned Trial Court, vide impugned Judgment dated

21.12.2019, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence

under sections 363, 366 (a) of the Indian Penal Code and 5(m)/6

of the POCSO Act, as referred to in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

6.The learned appellant's counsel questioned the veracity of

the victim PW 5 'R'’s statements, as the concerned doctor, PW 9

Dr. Mahendra, in his deposition, did not state any external injuries

on her body. However, the witness states that she sustained

injuries on her teeth. He further argued that, in her deposition,

the victim ‘R’ named the accused; however, the incident was

lodged against an unknown person and the identification

conducted of the accused appellant during the investigation is also

questionable.

7.Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant questioned

the date of birth mentioned in the school certificate, contending

that there was no foundation for how it was entered therein. He

vehemently questions the statements of witnesses PW 10 Daulat

and PW 12 ‘Z’ because PW 10 Daulat in his Examination-in-Chief,

stated that he instructed his son, PW 12 ‘Z’, to drop “R” at her

house; however, PW 12 ‘Z’, in his deposition, has stated that he

left “R“ at the Masjid; thus, it creates doubt over their version.

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (4 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

The victim in her statement no where stated that she left the

house with PW 12 ‘Z’, therefore, the version of PW 12 ‘Z’ to be

irrelevant.

8.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, defends the

conviction and sentence held in the impugned judgment against

the accused-appellant. He argues that the sole testimony of PW 5

‘R’ is sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt for offence under

Sections 363 and 366 (a) of the IPC, as well as Section 5 (m)/6 of

the POCSO Act. He contends that PW 5 ‘R’ explicitly stated in her

deposition that the accused-appellant forced her into a

relationship and committed rape on her. She further testified that

the appellant was intoxicated and fled away from the crime scene

after commission of offence with her. She also identified the

accused in jail, and her thumb impression appears on

identification memo Exhibit P-7. He also contended that during

cross-examination, nothing surfaced to discredit PW 5’s testimony,

which the learned Trial Court duly accepted.

9.The learned Public Prosecutor also points out that PW 5 ‘R’

underwent a medical examination by Lady Doctor PW 1, Dr.

Charusmita, on the very day the report was filed on 27.12.2024.

She testified that the victim’s hymen was torn and bleeding, with

traces of blood found around the tear during internal examination.

Vaginal swabs and blood samples were collected for forensic

analysis. Dr. Charusmita further opined that penetration involved a

hard and blunt object, as recorded in her medical report bearing

her signature, Exhibit P-1. Furthermore, besides PW-5's testimony,

other evidence available on record supporting the conviction. PW 6

Munnir Khan and PW-16 Suresh Kumar stated that they had seen

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (5 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

the accused with the victim on a motorcycle and identified him

during the jail identification parade conducted on 09.01.2015.

Additionally, the FSL report (Exhibit P-72) confirms the presence

of human semen on the pyjama and underwear of PW 5 ‘R’, as

well as in the vaginal swab collected from the victim.

10.The victim was only six years old at the time of incident, this

fact is confirmed by her father, PW 7 ‘X’, mother, PW 8 ‘Y’, and

PW 26 Harinarayan. PW 26 Harinarayan testified that the victim

was admitted to Vidhya Mandir Secondary School, Karanasar, with

her date of birth recorded as 19.01.2008. He also submitted her

scholar register, bearing her and her father’s names at Serial No.

661. Based on this evidence (Exhibit P-42), the Public Prosecutor

requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

11.Heard & perused the record.

12.In the instant case, the following points were required to be

established by the prosecution:-

1.Whether, at the relevant period, the age

of Victim PW 5 ‘R’ was about six years?

2.Whether PW 5 - Victim ‘R’, was kidnapped

and subjected to rape on 27.12.2014?

3.Whether the Appellant accused after

kidnapping the victim committed rape.

13.Before delineating issue Nos. 1 & 2, we deem it proper to

elucidate the law on the acceptance of Child witness testimony in

a criminal trial. Honble Apex Court, in the Judgment of The State

of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 243

held that the Evidence of a child witness for all purposes is

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (6 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

deemed to be on the same footing as any other witness, as long

as the child is found to be competent to testify. The only

precaution which the court should take while assessing the

evidence of a child witness is that such witness must be a reliable

one due to the susceptibility of children to falling prey to tutoring.

However, this in no manner means that the evidence of a child

must be rejected outright at the slightest discrepancy; rather, it

must be evaluated with great circumspection. While appreciating

the testimony of a child witness, the courts must assess whether

the evidence is a voluntary expression, not influenced by others,

and whether the testimony inspires confidence. At the same time,

one must be mindful that there is no rule requiring corroboration

of the testimony of a child witness before any reliance is placed on

it. The insistence on corroboration is a measure of caution and

prudence that the courts may exercise when the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case warrant it.

14.Furthermore, in a criminal trial, it is the bounden duty of the

prosecution to establish the facts beyond reasonable doubt & must

establish the guilt of the accused with clear, cogent, and

convincing evidence; the principle does not demand absolute

100% mathematical certainty or precision. A “reasonable doubt” is

not a fanciful, imaginary, or conjectural doubt. The doubt must be

based on reason, logic, or evidence, not speculation. In State of

U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, AIR 1988 SC 2154 , the Court clarified

that reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely

possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common

sense. The courts can't define what constitutes reasonable doubt;

however, Reasonable doubt can stem directly from conflicting

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (7 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

testimony, missing investigative links, or a general lack of

convincing evidence presented by the prosecution.

15.In a criminal trial, the investigating officer or a witness can't

answer a question that has cropped up in the cross-examination.

It's not possible that every suggestion needs to be replied to in

the way the defendant thought; if a suggestion shackles the

prosecution case & even an ordinary prudent person thinks that,

in the absence of affirmative answers, the backbone of the

prosecution case has been entirely gone, then only that doubt

may be coined as reasonable doubt.

16.Likewise, it is relevant to refer to the law on the sufficiency

of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. It is no longer res integra

that a conviction can be based solely on the uncorroborated

testimony of the prosecutrix if the court finds her conduct natural,

cogent, and credible. The Hon'ble Apex Court have repeatedly

emphasised that a victim of a sexual offence is not an accomplice;

rather, she is an injured survivor of a crime, and her testimony

stands on a higher pedestal. Thus, it is settled law that even the

lack of medical evidence, external injuries, or injuries to private

parts does not automatically invalidate the credibility of the

prosecutrix.

17.Therefore, on the anvil of the aforesaid principles. we will

deal with the testimony of the Child witness & other witnesses to

find out that the offence as alleged was committed & the accused

appellant has been rightly held guilty for the same.

Point Number 1: Whether, at the relevant period, the age of

Victim PW 5 ‘R’ was about six years?

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (8 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

18.The prosecution relied upon the following witnesses to

establish the age of the Victim:

(A)PW 7 ‘X’ (Victim's Father),

(B)PW 8 ‘Y’ (Victim's Mother),

(C)PW 1 Dr. Charusmita, Gynaecologist (Conducted Medical

Examination of the victim's genitals),

(D)PW 9 Dr. Mahendra Singh (Medical Jurist Associated with Dr

Charusmita),

(E)PW 18 Dr. A. K Shukla (Victim's treating doctor),

(F)PW 12 ‘Z’ (Victim's cousin),

(G)PW 17 Vikram Singh (Investigating Officer).

(H)PW 26 Harinarayan (Principal, Bhawani Adarsh Vidhya

Mandir, in which the victim was admitted in Class I) to prove the

victim's date of Birth.

19.To establish the victim's age, her parents, PW 7 ‘X’ and PW 8

‘Y’ and her cousin, PW 12 ‘Z’, stated during their examination-in-

chief that she was about six years old. During cross-examination,

no evidence was presented to challenge her age. The documents

prepared by the aforementioned doctors, respectively Ex P1 and

Ex P36, also indicate her age as six years. Additionally, her date of

birth is recorded as 19.01.2008, in the school register (Ex P 42)

and in the certificate (Ex P 41) issued by PW 26 Harinarayan. The

arguments presented are indeed unfathomable, considering that

the victim is well below the age of majority. If this had been a

case involving a girl close to reaching adulthood, such arguments

might have held weight; however, in this particular case, they are

entirely baseless. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the

impugned judgment, concluding PW 5 ‘R’ victim’s age around six

years.

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (9 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

Point Number 2 : Whether PW 5, Victim ‘R’, was kidnapped and

subjected to rape on 27.12.2014?

20.The prosecution rests its case on the following witnesses:-

(A)PW 5 ‘R’ (victim)

(B)PW 1 Dr. Charusmita

(C)PW 9 Dr. Mahendra Singh (Medical Jurist

Associated with Dr. Charusmita).

(D)PW 18 Dr. A. K. Shukla (Victim's treating

doctor)

(E)PW 17 Vikram Singh (Investigating

Officer)

(F)PW 7 ‘X’ (Victim's Father)

(G)PW 6 Munir Khan

(H)PW 16 Suresh Kumar

21.The prosecution has led two sets of evidence to prove the

aforesaid points, which may be further classified in two sub-

categories: (A) Substantive Evidence (B) Corroborative Evidence.

22.Firstly, we will appreciate the Substantive piece of evidence

led by the prosecution.

The victim, in her statement, has categorically stated that

she was subjected to a wrongful act.

Victim's Father PW 7 ‘X’, in his deposition, stated that, on

information received from PW 13 Prahlad, he reached Chak

Jaitpura & found that her daughter was in trepidation, her pyjama

was soaked with blood, and her legs also had blood stains. At the

crime spot, the soil was also soaked with blood. Her daughter

reported to her that she was subjected to rape and that she was

lured by a man who took her on a motorcycle. Thereafter, he

reported the matter by filing a written report (Ex 10). PW 7

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (10 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

further stated that her daughter's clothes were also sealed

through Ex P 2.

23.PW 13 Prahlad corroborates PW 7 ‘X’s statement up to the

extent that he saw the victim weeping & her clothes were dirty,

though he does not state that her clothes were blood-soaked;

however, his statements are relevant to the extent that the police

arrived at the place of occurrence where PW 7 ‘X’ submitted a

written report.

24. PW 17 Vikram Singh, (Investigating Officer) also deposed

that he reached Village Chak Jaitpura after receiving information

from the control room along with other police officials. Thereafter,

he found other villagers present and PW 7 ‘X’ submitted a written

report Ex. P 10 alleging kidnapping & rape of her daughter by an

unknown person. The victim, PW 5 ‘R’, was immediately sent to

the hospital with a lady constable and other police officials, and a

case was registered under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He also deposed that

the place of the incident was inspected at the instance of PW 7 ‘X’

& site plan Ex. P2 was prepared. He also collected blood-smeared

soil along with soil samples, packed them in a plastic bag, and

thereafter further wrapped & sealed them in a cloth by preparing a

memo, Ex P 3. The victim was referred to J.K. Lone Hospital.

25.In the relevant cross-examination of the aforementioned

witnesses, nothing material emerged that would cast doubt on the

prosecution story. The court finds that the victim immediately

disclosed the incident to her father, PW 7 ‘X’, who rushed to the

scene of crime after receiving information from PW 13 Prahlad. He

observed that PW 5 ‘R’ was in a state of trepidation and had spots

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (11 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

of blood on her pyjamas. The police official, PW 17 Vikram Singh,

who also arrived at the spot after receiving a call from the control

room, observed the same and promptly forwarded the victim to

the hospital for medical examination from where she was referred

to J.K. Lone Hospital. Upon inspecting the site, he found marks of

motorcycle tyres, blood on the soil, a pouch of liquor, the victim's

mobile phone, and the papers she was carrying. PW 17 has

recovered all these articles through Memo Exhibit P 3 to 5.

26.The victim was only six years old at the time, and the

accused was a stranger to her; in the FIR, it was also mentioned

that an unknown person raped her. Therefore, these

circumstances leave no room for the court to harbour any doubt

about the prosecution's story & confirms that the victim was

sexually abused. The statements of PW 10 Daulat and PW 12 ‘Z’

has no relevancy about the commission of offence with victim PW

5 ‘R’ and their evidence are relevant upto the extent that on the

date of offence PW 10 Daulat instructed his son PW 12 ‘Z’ to leave

the victim at the field, however, instead of leaving, the victim PW

5 ‘R’, at the field, he dropped her near to the Masjid. Therefore,

their statements have no direct or indirect bearing over the actual

facts i.e. with regard to the commission of rape with the victim. As

already discussed that corroboration of victim’s statements are

only law of prudence and not rule of law. However, to rule out any

suspicion, we would now discuss the other corroborative piece of

evidence led by the prosecution.

27.Firstly, we will refer to the statements of the doctors who

treated & examined the Victim PW 5 ‘R’.

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (12 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

PW 18, Dr. A. K. Shukla deposed that he was the unit head

on 27.12.2014 in the J.K. Lone Hospital Pediatric Department, and

the victim was admitted in her ward at 06:26 P.M. and she was

having an internal vaginal injury with blood stains. He examined

the victim & informed the medical jurist, who also examined the

victim. He further deposed that on 28.12.2014, the victim was

operated on for first degree Vaginal tear and she remained

hospitalised from 26.12.2014 to 03.01.2015. The witness also

endorsed the bed head ticket i.e. Ex P 36, confirming the aforesaid

facts. PW 1 Dr Charusmita & PW 9 Dr. Mahendra also medically

examined the victim.

28.PW 1 Dr. Charusmita examined the victim's genital parts.

She found vaginal tearing with blood stains & fresh tearing of the

hymen, further detailing these facts in written Report Ex P1, with

an opinion that the victim's vaginal injury was due to penetration

of a hard object and to confirm the rape, victims Vaginal swab and

Vaginal Smear were preserved & handed over for FSL

Examination.

29.PW 9, Dr. Mahendra, corroborates PW 1 Dr. Charusmita's

version by confirming his signature on Ex P1. In his cross-

examination, nothing material surfaced to make their testimony

questionable. Thus, from their evidence, the prosecution has been

able to establish the fact that the victim was subjected to rape.

The learned Appellants' counsel has not assailed the findings of

the impugned judgment about the collection of the victim's clothes

and its scientific analysis to find out the commission of rape. The

FSL report has been exhibited as Ex P 72, which demonstrates

that Human Semen was detected in Exhibits 2 & 6 (Victim's

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (13 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

pyjama & vulvo-vaginal swab, which fortifies the prosecution case

& leaves no room for the court to conclude that the victim was

subjected to rape.

30.As far as the kidnapping of the victim is concerned, apart

from the statement of victim herself. PW 6 Munir Khan and PW 16

Suresh Kumar, in their depositions before the Trial Court,

specifically stated that the victim arrived with a person on a

motorcycle. They further testified that on the same day, they

came to know the victim had been subjected to rape. Their

evidence, therefore, corroborates the victim’s statement that the

person who brought her on the motorcycle kidnapped her and

subsequently committed rape.

Point Number 3: Whether the Appellant accused after kidnapping

the victim committed rape?

31.In order to establish the aforesaid fact, the prosecution relied

upon following witnesses:-

A)PW 5 ‘R’

B)PW 29 Birbal Singh,

C)PW 6 Muneer,

D)PW 16 Suresh,

E)PW 25 Sitaram

F)PW 17 Vikram Singh.

32.We have already concluded in the foregoing point number

two that the victim was subjected to rape & now we are only

dealing with the fact of whether the accused committed rape on

the victim PW 5 ‘R’ or not. PW5 ‘R’, in her statement rendered

before the Trial Court, which was recorded in question-answer

form, has specifically answered that she identified the accused in

jail and Exhibit P-7 bears her thumb impression. Similarly, when

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (14 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

she was cross-examined by putting a specific question that

whether the person who took you in the forest, was known to you,

the witness replied that ^^ughaA eSaus mls igys dHkh ugha ns[kkA**

She has also specified the procedure adopted by the

concerned authority who conducted the identification parade and

on the questions put by the accused which reads as follows:-

“1- iz’u %egs’k dk uke vkius ikik ds dgus ls fy;k gS

D;k\

mÙkj %eq>s egs’k dk uke ysus ds fy, ikik us ugha dgk

FkkA

2- iz’u %tsy esa egs’k dks igpkuus ls igys vkids ikik us

?kj ij mldh QksVks fn[kk nh Fkh\

mÙkj %ughaA

3- iz’u %tsy esa egs’k dks igys ls gh vyx [kM+k dj j[kk

Fkk\

mÙkj %ugha] lcds lkFk [kM+k dj j[kk FkkA

4- iz’u %tsy esa egs’k dh igpku fdlus djok;h\

mÙkj %fdlh us ugha djok;h] eSus [kqn us gh igpkuk FkkA**

33.It was also suggested to the witness that the accused-

appellant had not committed any sexual offence, to which the

witness denied the suggestion. Thus, throughout her cross-

examination, the witness remained consistent with her

examination-in-chief, wherein she specifically stated that the

accused-appellant had committed rape upon her. She further

identified the accused-appellant during the identification parade

conducted in jail, as recorded in Exhibit P-7, i.e., the identification

parade memo. The answers given by the victim in reply to the

cross-examination confirm that the accused-appellant committed

rape of the victim. In the cross-examination, the victim was not

subjected to a specific defence that arose during the statement of

the accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

Thus, after going through the entire statements of PW 5 ‘R’, we do

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (15 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

not find that the victim's statements are the result of tutoring or a

result of any enmity; rather, the victim understood the questions

& replied to them firmly.

34.It is also relevant to refer to the statement of PW-17 Vikram

Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case, who stated that the

accused was arrested through Exhibit P-13 and was kept under

veil. Thereafter an identification parade was conducted before

SDO Amer. He also stated that, in the identification parade

conducted before SDO Amer, the victim identified the accused-

appellant; thus, the victim's evidence is further corroborated by

the identification parade conducted by the SDO. The concerned

SDO, i.e., PW-29 Beerbal Singh, was also examined before the

Trial Court and in his examination-in-chief he deposed that on

09.01.2015, an identification parade of accused Mahesh Kumar

Sharma was conducted and the victim rightly identified him. He

further deposed that the memo of the identification parade was

prepared as Exhibit P-35, which bears his signature and the

victim's thumb impression. In the cross-examination of PW-29

Birbal Singh, nothing substantive came out to suggest that the

identification was not properly conducted.

35.It is also relevant to refer that the clothes of the accused-

appellant were also recovered by investigating officer PW-17

Vikram Singh through Exhibit P-16 and were properly preserved in

a sealed cover and deposited in the police station Malkhana. PW-

17's statement further shows that the accused-appellant's clothes,

along with the victim's clothes and other articles, were sent to the

FSL laboratory for forensic analysis. In the FSL report, Exhibit P-

72, human semen was detected in Exhibit No. 2, which is the

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (16 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

victim's pyjamas, and also on her underwear. The accused's

underwear and pants were also found stained with the semen.

Thus, from the FSL report, it is also confirmed that it was the

accused only who committed rape with the victim.

36.It is also pertinent to note that during the investigation, it

was revealed that, before the incident, the accused & victim were

seen together on a motorcycle. To establish this fact, the

prosecution relied upon PW-6 Munir Khan & PW-16 Suresh.

37.PW-6 Munir Khan, in his examination-in-chief, specifically

stated that on 27.12.2014, he was working as a salesman at

Shubham Kisan Seva Kendra petrol pump, Radhakrishanpura. At

around 01:00 P.M., a man came on a motorcycle, asked for petrol,

and paid fifty rupees. He also deposed that a girl, about five to six

years old, was sitting on the motorcycle tank. He further deposed

that the person who asked to fill petrol in the motorcycle was

intoxicated. The witness further deposed that the girl was wearing

a red-coloured jacket and green pyjamas. The man went with the

girl, and in the evening he came to know that a girl of six years

was subjected to rape. In his examination-in-chief, he also

deposed that identification was conducted and that he identified

the accused appellant in jail. The identification memo is Exhibit P-

8, which bears his signature. He has also identified the accused

appellant before the court. In the relevant cross-examination, he

denied the suggestion that the man who came with the girl had

covered his face with a muffler. He has also denied that the

accused’s photo was shown to him. Thus, the testimony of the

witness PW-6 remained unshattered & further corroborates the

victim's version that the accused committed rape on her.

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (17 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

38.PW-16 Suresh Kumar, in his examination-in-chief, stated that

the accused-appellant came with the victim, who was aged

between five and six years, and asked for a quarter of liquor; he

gave him a quarter of liquor on payment of rupees ninety. He has

also deposed that the accused-appellant was intoxicated and he

fell from his motorcycle. Thereafter, the man went with the girl

child. He has also stated that after around three to four hours, he

got the information that near Badi Nadi at Chak Jaitpura a person

on a motorcycle committed rape on a girl and fled away. He has

also stated that after hearing the news, he went to the place of

occurrence and saw the girl, and she was the same girl whom he

saw with the accused. The girl was wearing a red jacket and green

pyjamas. He also stated that, 15 to 20 days earlier, Sitaram came

to his shop with the accused-appellant, and he remembered the

name as Sitaram due to some altercation which took place for the

cost of liquor. He also deposed that on 09.01.2015, SDO, Amer

conducted the identification parade, and he identified the accused.

The identification memo, Exhibit P 18, bears his signature. In the

relevant cross-examination, he reiterated that the accused

appellant came to his shop 15 to 20 days before the incident. He

specifically stated in cross-examination that the accused appellant

came with the victim. In cross-examination, the witnesses again

reiterated that the accused appellant came with the victim, and

the victim was carrying books, etc. He firmly answered in cross-

examination that when he went to the place of occurrence, the

accused was not present. No suggestion was made to the witness

regarding the identification parade. Thus, PW 16's testimony also

confirmed that, before the incident, the accused appellant was

[2026:RJ-JP:36056-DB] (18 of 18) [CRLAD-79/2021]

seen with the victim, and there is no cogent reason to disbelieve

PW 16 Suresh Kumar Sharma.

39.PW 25 Sitaram's statements are relevant only to the extent

that he went with the accused to the liquor shop and met PW16

Suresh, 15-20 days before the incident. In his deposition, he has

corroborated the version of PW 16 Suresh Kumar. It is pertinent to

mention that PW 25 Sitaram Sharma is the younger brother of the

accused-appellant, and in his statement he has specifically stated

that 15 to 20 days before the incident, he went with his brother

accused-appellant to the liquor shop located in Radhakrishnapura.

An altercation took place with the shopkeeper. In his cross-

examination, nothing substantial was suggested which cast doubt

over his testimony. Thus, from the statement of the aforesaid

witnesses, it is further confirmed that on 27.12.2014, the accused

appellant, after kidnapping the victim PW-5 ‘R’, committed rape

with the Victim and left her at Badi Nadi, Jaitpura.

40.The learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfy the

court that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is not

trustworthy or suffers from any infirmity. Therefore, in the entirety

of the prosecution story, we are of the view that the learned trial

court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused under

Sections 363, 366(a) of the IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO

Act and sentenced him accordingly.

41.We find no merit in the appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is

dismissed.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

41/Keshav