1

2026:CGHC:1646-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 614 of 2025

X S/o Y (Details Of Accused Not Disclosed Because He Is Elder Brother

Of Her Father)

... Appellant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Protection Center C.S.E.B. PS

Kotwali Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent

For Appellant :Mr.Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate

For Respondent :Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ

12/1/2026

1.This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 4.2.2025 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Korba in Special Case

(POCSO) No.06/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted

for offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as “POCSO Act”)

2

and sentence to undergo RI for 25 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in

default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months.

2.The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 7.1.2022 mother of the

victim (PW-1) appeared with the victim at the outpost CSEB,

Police Station Kotwali, Korba and submitted a written complaint

Ex.P-1 and unnumbered First Information Report Ex.P-2 that her

elder daughter/victim, who has been living in Korba with her elder

father and elder mother since childhood, called her on 6.1.2022

and told her that on 5.1.2022 at around 5 A.M. when the victim

was sleeping in her room, at that time her elder father/accused

came inside her room and taking advantage of the opportunity

when there was no one in the house, forcibly raped the victim.

Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-3.

Consent for medical examination of the victim was given by her

mother vide Ex.P-4. Progress report of class 5

th

of the victim was

seized vide Ex.P-5. Payjama and underwear of the victim were

seized vide Ex.P-6. Patwari also prepared the spot map vide

Ex.P-7. Dakhil kharij register of the victim in which date of birth

was mentioned as 2.7.2008 was seized vide Ex.P-8. Certified

copy of dakhil kharij register was seized vide Ex.P-10C. Semen

slide and public hair of the accused / appellant were seized vide

Ex.P-11. Two vaginal slides and pubic hair of the victim was

seized vide Ex.P-12. MLC of the victim was done by Dr.Jyoti Sahu

(PW-6) vide Ex.P13 where injuries external and internal genitals

are within 48 hours duration. FIR in Crime No.0026/2022 was

3

registered vide Ex.P-15. MLC of the appellant was conducted by

Dr.B.K.Jhalaria (PW-10) vide Ex.P-16 and he was found capable

to perform sexual intercourse. The appellant was arrested on

8.1.2022 vide arrest memo Ex.P-21. Seized articles were sent to

FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-26),

semen stains and human sperm were found in Article A1 Pygama,

Article A2 underwear and Article B slide seized from the victim and

Article D slide seized from the appellant. Radiological test of the

victim was done vide Ex.P-27 in which it has been opined that the

age of candidate is approximately between 14-16 years.

3.During the investigation and on the basis of the evidence

collected, the accused / appellant found to have committed an

offence under Section 506 of the IPC and Section 506 of the IPC

was added against him. After completion of investigation, charge-

sheet was submitted before the jurisdictional criminal Court.

4.Charges were framed against the accused / appellant under

Sections 376(2)(c), 376(3), 506 Part-II of the IPC and Section 6 of

the POCSO Act and contents of the same were read out and

explained to him. The accused / appellant denied the charges and

claimed trial.

5.In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the

prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 27

documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of

CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material

4

appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has

been falsely implicated in the case. In his defence, Pralhad Singh

(DW-1) was examined

6.After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial

Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in

para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial

Court has failed to appreciate the material fact that the present

appellant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence due to

a pre-existing family dispute between the appellant and the

complainant. The genesis of the prosecution case itself is doubtful

and motivated. Learned Trial Court erred in placing reliance upon

the testimony of prosecution witnesses who are admittedly

interested and partisan witnesses, and who had a clear motive to

falsely implicate the present appellant. Their evidence ought to

have been scrutinized with greater caution. He further submits

that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the

defence version that the complainant had forcefully involved the

victim in a dance party, which was objected to by the present

appellant. Owing to this objection, a dispute arose between the

complainant and the appellant, leading to the filing of a false and

fabricated complaint. The appreciation of evidence by the learned

Trial Court is manifestly erroneous and the reasoning adopted is

perverse and unsustainable in law. The findings are based on

5

conjectures and surmises rather than on settled principles of

criminal jurisprudence. He also submits that there are material

contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the

prosecution witnesses, which go to the root of the case. The

learned Trial Court has completely overlooked these

contradictions, which clearly create serious doubt regarding the

prosecution version and point towards false implication. The

learned Trial Court failed to extend the benefit of doubt to the

appellant, despite the prosecution having failed to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was therefore entitled to

acquittal. He contended that the learned Trial Court did not

properly consider the fact that the victim’s statements recorded

before the Police, and the Court were made under the influence

and instructions of her mother, and not out of her own free will,

thereby rendering such statements unreliable. The learned Trial

Court further failed to appreciate that the age of the victim has not

been conclusively established by reliable and cogent evidence as

required under law, which is fatal to the prosecution case. In view

of the aforesaid submissions, it is humbly prayed that this Court

may be pleased to allow the present appeal and set aside the

impugned judgment, thereby acquitting the appellant of all the

charges.

8.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the

submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and

6

submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced

the appellant, in which no interference is called for by this Court.

9.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their

rival submissions made herein-above and went through the

records with utmost circumspection.

10.The first question for consideration before this Court would be,

whether the trial Court is rightly held that on the date of incident,

the victim was minor?

11.When a person is charged for offence punishable under the

POCSO Act, or for rape punishable in the Indian Penal Code, the

age of the victim is significant and essential ingredients to prove

such charge and the gravity of the offence gets changed when the

child is below 18 years, 12 years and more than 18 years. Section

2(d) of the POCSO Act defines the “child” which means any

person below the age of eighteen years.

12.In the present case, the prosecution has seized dakhil-kharij

register of the victim (Ex.P-10C), on which her date of birth is

mentioned as 2.7.2008 and since defence has not challenged the

documentary and oral evidence presented by the prosecution

regarding the victim's date of birth being 2.7.2008, it is established

that the age of the victim on the date of incident i.e. 5.1.2022 is 13

years, 6 months and 3 days. Thus, at the time of the incident, the

victim is a minor girl below 18 years of age.

7

13.The next question for consideration before us is whether the

appellant has committed rape on minor victim ?

14.Rape has been defined in Section 375 of the IPC as follows :

“375. Rape.-- A man is said to commit "rape" if

he--

(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the

vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or

makes her to do so with him or any other person;

or

(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of

the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the

urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do

so with him or any other person; or

(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman

so as to cause penetration into the vagina,

urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman

or makes her to do so with him or any other

person; or

(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus,

urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with

him or any other person,

under the circumstances falling under any of the

following seven descriptions:

First. Against her will.

Secondly. Without her consent.

Thirdly. With her consent, when her consent has

been obtained by putting her or any person in

8

whom she is interested, in fear of death or of

hurt.

Fourthly. With her consent, when the man knows

that he is not her husband and that her consent

is given because she believes that he is another

man to whom she is or believes herself to be

lawfully married.

Fifthly. With her consent when, at the time of

giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness

of mind or intoxication or the administration by

him personally or through another of any

stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is

unable to understand the nature and

consequences of that to which she gives

consent.

Sixthly. With or without her consent, when she is

under eighteen years of age.

Seventhly. When she is unable to communicate

consent.

Explanation 1. For the purposes of this section,

"vagina" shall also include labia majora.

Explanation 2. Consent means an unequivocal

voluntary agreement when the woman by words,

gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal

communication, communicates willingness to

participate in the specific sexual act:

Provided that a woman who does not

physically resist to the act of penetration shall not

by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as

consenting to the sexual activity.

9

Exception 1. A medical procedure or intervention

shall not constitute rape.

Exception 2. Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by

a man with his own wife, the wife not being under

fifteen years of age, is not rape.”

15.The victim has been examined as PW-2. In para 3 of her

statement, she has stated that she was sleeping in her room and

then she felt someone hiding, she woke up, she saw the accused,

she called out of her mother (badi mummy), but the accused

choked her, rendering her speechless. He then raped her. He

forbade her from telling anyone about this incident. He threatened

to kill her if her mother found out. In para 4 of her statement, she

has stated that she told her teacher about the incident and she

asked her to inform her mother. Her mother works as a tailor in

Mirzapur, Varanasi and she lived at her grandparents house. On

6.1.2022, she informed her mother about the incident via phone.

Her mother arrived here by train on 7.1.2022 and they filed a

report at the CSEB outpost. In para 6 of her statement, she has

stated that due to rape by the accused/appellant, blood came out

from her vagina which got on her panties and pajamas which

were seized by the police. In para 27 of her cross-examination,

she has denied that after her mother and she met on 7.1.2022,

she made up a story and filed a false complaint against the

appellant based on her mother’s instructions. She has denied that

she is making statements based on what she was instructed to

do. In para 31 of her cross-examination, she has denied that she

10

has given the statement before the Magistrate as per the

instructions given by her mother and the police. In para 34 of her

cross-examination, she has denied that she was fabricating these

facts to get rid of her elder father/the accused and not live with

him.

16.Dr.Jyoti Sahu (PW-6) has stated in 5 of her examination-in-chief

that on external examination, she found that the victim was fully

conscious and had 28 teeth. Both of her breasts were developed

and her public hair was developed and not clumped together. Her

hymen was ruptured and she was bleeding from her vagina. A 3 x

1 mm incision was present on her left labia minora with redness.

On internal examination, she found a 1.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 mm abrasion

on the victim’s posterior vaginal wall, located in the upper third of

the vagina, where she was complaining of pain. Blood was being

drawn from the victim’s cervix. The doctor has opined that the

victim’s hymen was already damaged. The internal and external

injuries to the victim occurred within 48 hours of the time of

examination. Her report is Ex.P-13.

17.In the Indian society refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of

sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding

insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-

permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to

admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had

ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being

11

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...”.

18.A victim of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice.

She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere

says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is

corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a

competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must

receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of

physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must

attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an

injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is

12

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 victim it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to

her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an

accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to

the testimony of the victim must necessarily depend on the facts

and circumstances of each case. But if a victim is an adult and of

full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her

evidence unless the same is own to be infirm and not trustworthy.

If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the

case discloses that the victim does not have a strong motive to

falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily

have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.

19.The Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjit Hazarika v. State of

Assam, AIR 1998 SC 635 has held that the evidence of a victim

of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an

injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. It must not

be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault

is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another

13

person’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her

evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she

were an accomplice.

20.The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v.

State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:-

“22. 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 every

14

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.”

21.The Supreme Court in the matter of Nawabuddin v. State of

Uttarakhand, (2022) 5 SCC 419 has held as under:-

“17. 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 leniency 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

15

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.

18. 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.

19. As observed and held by this Court in 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 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 needs 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

16

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.”

22.Considering the evidence of the victim (PW-2) who has

specifically stated the act of the appellant, the statement of

Dr.Jyoti Sahu (PW-6), further considering the examination report

of the victim (Ex.P-13), FSL report (Ex.P-26), material available on

record and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-

stated judgments, we are of the considered opinion that learned

Special Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant

for the above-mentioned offences. We do not find any illegality

and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court.

23.In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the

prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all

reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and

sentence as awarded by the Special Judge to the appellant is

hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is

accordingly dismissed.

24.It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out

the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.

17

25.Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along

with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned

forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send

a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail

where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the

same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail

the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an

appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the

assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the

Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Bablu