Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.
Deepak Verma, S/o. Pawan Verma - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRA No. 392 of 2021
Decided On : 16-10-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code – Section 376AB – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor – The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for raping a 7-year-old girl. The trial court's findings were based on the credible testimony of the victim and corroborative evidence. The court emphasized the importance of the victim's testimony in sexual assault cases. (Paras 1, 16, 20, 21, 24)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code – Section 217 – Alteration of charges – The appellant argued that the trial court erred by not recalling witnesses after altering charges, which could have affected the outcome. The court acknowledged the procedural lapse but found no prejudice caused to the appellant. (Paras 11, 26)
Facts of the case: The appellant was accused of raping a 7-year-old girl on 25.06.2018. The victim's mother reported the incident after the victim returned home crying. The appellant was convicted based on the victim's testimony and medical evidence. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
Findings of Court: The court upheld the conviction based on the victim's credible testimony and the evidence presented. The appellant was found guilty of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. (Paras 24, 31)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony and the procedural correctness regarding the alteration of charges. (Paras 10, 26)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the victim's testimony was sufficient for conviction, emphasizing that the sole testimony of a victim can be relied upon if credible. The procedural error regarding witness recall was acknowledged but deemed non-prejudicial. (Paras 20, 26)
Result: The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act with a modified sentence of 10 years. (Paras 31, 33)
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2021 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 137/2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Special Court, Raipur, District Raipur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year more.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 25.06.2018 at about 3.30 p.m., in the terrace of Rakesh Chandrakar's house at Tikrapara, Raipur, he committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim (PW-1) aged about 7 years by inserting his penis inside the mouth of the victim.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim's (PW-1) mother Smt. Kanti Sahu (PW-2) lodged a report in Tikrapara police station to the effect that on 25.06.2018 her husband Umesh Sahu left for work at 09:00 a.m. Her son Tikeshwar Sahu aged 09 years and the victim (PW-1) aged 07 years were at home after returning from school at 11.30 a.m. At around 03:30 p.m. the victim went to the nearby grocery shop to get Pepsi. When the victim did not return for about 15 minutes, she went to Sahu grocery shop to and at that time, the victim came crying. On asking, the victim told that after buying Pepsi, the appellant took her to the roof of Rakesh Chandrakar's house by gagging her mouth, removed her underwear and made her sleep on the roof and after removing his own pants, he slept on her and inserted his penis inside the mouth of the victim. When she opened the mouth of the victim, a foul smell like semen was coming from her mouth and there was a stain on her undergarment. On the basis of the report lodged by the mother of the victim, Smt. Kanti Sahu, FIR bearing Crime No. 253/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the IPC and Section 03, 04 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 was registered in Police Station Tikrapara and the case was taken into investigation.
4. During the investigation, Section 376AB of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) were added. On finding evidence of crime against the appellant, he was arrested and after complete investigation in the case, a charge sheet was prepared against the accused and presented in the court of Seventh Additional Sessions Judge FTC, Raipur. Thereafter, the case was transferred from the Court of Seventh Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Special Court, Raipur, on 08.01.2020.
5. Charges were framed by the learned trial Court firstly on 05.10.2018 for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which was denied by the appellant and prayed for trial. Thereafter, amended charges were framed on 20.09.2019 for the offences punishable under Section 376AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.
6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution recorded the statements of a total of 06 prosecution witnesses i.e. the victim (PW-1), mother of the victim (PW-2), Dr. Smt. Rajani Chourasiya, (PW-3) who had examined the victim, Dr. S.K. Bhandari (PW-4) who had examined the appellant, Ku. Tanseem Kausar (PW-5) who is the Principal of the Gyan Bharti Public School, and the Investigating Officer Rajesh Choudhary (PW-6). The prosecution exhibited as many as 25 exhibits.
7. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 11.02.2021. To the most of the questions, he had expressed his ignorance and some of them were denied as well. He chose to testify in defense, declaring himself innocent. But no defense evidence h
The court affirmed that a victim's credible testimony can suffice for conviction in sexual assault cases, despite procedural lapses in witness examination.
The testimony of a victim of sexual assault is credible and can support conviction without corroboration, but the prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge of the victim's caste for SC/ST Act ch....
The reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and the admissibility of res gestae evidence were central to the court's decision.
The court affirms that minor victims' testimonies can be solely relied upon in sexual offence cases, provided they are credible, and clarifies that penetration into external genitalia suffices to con....
The judgment established the distinction between rape and sexual assault, emphasizing the requirement of penetration for the former, and the physical contact without penetration for the latter under ....
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 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 sole testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases can suffice for conviction if credible, emphasizing stringent punishment under the POCSO Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
