IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, N.K.CHANDRAVANSHI, JJ.
Sonu Vishwakarma S/o Pardeshi @ Raju Vishwakarma - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRA No. 2033 of 2022
Decided on : 06-10-2023
POCSO - Conviction under Section 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act - [Section 363, Section 366, Section 376, Section 6 of POCSO Act] - The court convicted the appellant under Section 376AB of the IPC but under the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, 2012, has convicted him for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appeal was dismissed as the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court did not commit any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor victim. The victim was recovered from the accused's custody after being lured and taken to Nagpur where she was subjected to forceful rape.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor victim based on the victim's consistent and credible testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements. The court dismissed the appeal as the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's guilt in kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor victim, the credibility of the victim's testimony, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions under the IPC and POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's consistent and credible testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements to establish the appellant's guilt in kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor victim. The court also emphasized that the consent of a minor girl in case of sexual intercourse is immaterial and amounts to rape.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) questioning the judgment dated 26.05.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/First F.T.C.S. (POCSO) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, in Special Sessions Case No. 82/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction under Section | Sentence |
| 363 of Indian Penal Code | Rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 5 years (IPC) and fine of Rs. 200/-. In default, 6 months R.I. more. |
| 366-A of IPC | RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 200/-. In default, 6 months R.I. more. |
| 376(3) of IPC | RI for 20 years and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default, 2 years R.I. more. |
2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that the appellant kidnapped the victim aged about 15 years and repeatedly raped her and committed penetrative sexual assault on her.
3. The first information report (for short, the FIR), (Exhibit P/2) was lodged by the Bihari Banjare (PW-2) father of the victim at Police Station, Torwa, District Bilaspur, on 07.05.2019 at 21:30 hours, which was registered as Crime No. 0155/2019 for the offences under Section 363 and 366 of the IPC. The said FIR was registered by Amrit Sahu, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-16).
4. In the FIR, it was alleged by the complainant-Bihari Banjare (PW-2) that his daughter (victim) who was aged about 15 years and had left her studies since last year, had gone somewhere on 04.05.2019 before 5 a.m. When he enquired about his daughter, it was revealed at Lalkhadan that the appellant/accused, who was working at Pradeep Hotel had lured his daughter and taken her alongwith him. From that date, the accused/appellant was also not coming for work at Pradeep Hotel.
5. The victim was recovered on 19.05.2019 at 13:30 hours by the Head Constable, Sunita Ajgalle (PW-14) from the custody of the appellant/accused from a hut like house near an under-constructed building situated at Dev Nagar, 67, Nagpur, Maharashtra, in presence of Leeladhar Hedau (PW-6) and one Shekhar Tukaram Satpute , and accordingly, a Baramadgi Panchnama (Exhibit P/10) was also prepared.
6. The accused/convict was arrested on 21.05.2019 at 11:30 a.m. by the police of Police Station, Torwa.
7. After investigating the matter, the police submitted the police report alongwith charge-sheet against the appellant/convict under section 363, 366 and 376 of IPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bilaspur, on 18.07.2019.
8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge on 25.07.2019 charging the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused/convict abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.
9. Amongst others, the prosecution has exhibited the following documents in support of its case:
First Information Report (Exhibit P/2)
Crime details form (Exhibit P/3)
Property seizure memo (Exhibit P/4)
Consent letter (Exhibit P/5)
Memo regarding providing of Dakhil Kharij Register (Exhibit P/6)
Property seizure memo (Exhibit P/7)
Copy of admission and discharge register (Exhibit P/8C)
Baramadgi Panchnama (Exhibit P/10)
Memo to T.I. regarding recording statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P/11)
Statement of Pradeep Paswan (Exhibit P/12)
Memo regarding providing of CDR of mobile No. 6263207973 and 6067702878(Exhibit P/13)
Call details (Exhibit P/14)
Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P/15)
Application for medical examination of victim and medical examination report (Exhibit P/16A and P/16)
Property seizure memo (Exhibit P/17)
Consent letter (Exhibit P/18 and P/19)
Notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P/20)
Application for medical examination of accused and medical examination report (Exhibit
State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary
State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh
Sham Singh v. State of Haryana
Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra
Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana
Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan
Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam
The consent of a minor girl in case of sexual intercourse is immaterial and amounts to rape.
The testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases is sufficient for conviction without corroboration, as long as it is credible and inspires confidence.
The main legal point established is that the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix can be the sole basis for conviction in cases of sexual assault, without the need for corroboration, if found trustwor....
The reliability of the victim's testimony and the lack of requirement for corroboration in cases of sexual assault were central legal principles established in the judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be trustworthy and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the....
The sole testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases can suffice for conviction if credible, without needing corroboration unless compelling reasons exist.
The victim's testimony in sexual assault cases should be weighed on reliability rather than strict corroboration, reflecting the trauma and context of the crime.
The court upheld the conviction for rape of a minor based on credible testimony and corroborative evidence, emphasizing the admissibility of school records for age determination.
The conviction for sexual assault can be based solely on the victim's credible testimony, and the POCSO Act mandates minimum sentences for such offences against minors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.