Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Ajay Verma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 390 of 2021|CRA No. 394 of 2021|CRA No. 440 of 2021|CRA No. 820 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.S. Rajput, Samir Singh, Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Vikas Kumar Pandey
For the Respondents: Shailendra Sharma
In sexual assault cases involving minors, the victim's testimony is of high probative value and can base a conviction without corroboration. Age must be determined using school or matriculation records according to statutory priority rules, and gang rape participants are jointly liable for the offence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 34, 354, 354(A), 363, 375, 376, 376
(D), 376(DA), 376(F), 506 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 6, 8, 12, 19, 21 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66(E), 66
(D), 67(A), 67
(B) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Gang rape - Age determination - Delay in F.I.R. - Electronic evidence under Section 65B of Evidence Act - In cases of sexual assault on minors, the testimony of the victim stands on a higher pedestal and can form the basis of conviction without corroboration if it inspires confidence - Appellate courts should not substitute their view unless the lower court's decision is perverse or illegal. (Paras 34, 42, 47, 66, 73)
(B) Evidence - Age determination of minor - Rule of priority - Date of birth in school records (admission/dismissal register) or matriculation certificate holds statutory recognition and primacy over other documents under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act - Ossification test is a secondary resort only when primary documents are unavailable. (Paras 20, 21, 23)
(C) Gang Rape - Joint liability - Legal principle entails that where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each member of such group shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape. (Paras 58, 61, 75)
Facts of the case:
Multiple criminal appeals were filed against a conviction for gang rape, kidnapping, and violation of provisions of the child protection act and other related statutes. The prosecution alleged that the victims, both being minors, were enticed, forcibly abducted, subjected to gang rape by a group of individuals, and threatened with viral exposure of recorded footage to prevent them from reporting the incident. The incident was only reported after persistent harassment and pressure from the convicted individuals.
Findings of Court:
Despite a delay in filing the F.I.R., the explanation provided regarding the immense fear, trauma, and threats of social stigma was accepted as satisfactory. The court held that the testimony of the victims remained consistent and trustworthy. Furthermore, electronic data retrieved from seized devices, supported by credible forensic examination and certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, corroborated the prosecution's narrative.
Issues: Determining the age of the victims for the purpose of the child protection statute, evaluating the admissibility and impact of the delay in lodging the F.I.R., and assessing the credibility of the victims' testimony against the defense's claims of false implication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that when a minor is the victim of a sexual offence, their testimony is of paramount importance and deserves distinct weight. The documentary evidence regarding age was conclusive, and the electronic evidence provided a reliable link corroborating the victims' accounts of the gang assault, thereby proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeals dismissed and convictions upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. standard for age determination of minor victims in pocso cases. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 2. legal requirements for defining kidnapping/abduction from lawful guardianship. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 3. evidentiary value of witness identification and corroboration by electronic data. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 4. admissibility of evidence despite delay in filing fir in sexual assault cases. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 5. application of joint liability and sentencing for gang rape offenses. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 6. credibility of victim testimony in sexual assault as sole basis for conviction. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 7. upholding convictions on proof beyond reasonable doubt; sentencing orders. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ
10.07.2025
1. Since the aforesaid four criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in Special Case (Atrocities) No.52/2020, they were clubbed & heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Learned State counsel submits that notice has been served to PW-3 (father of the victims) about the pendency of the present appeals filed on behalf of the accused persons.
3. Appellants- Ajay Verma @ Chhotu (A1), Shivam Verma @ Monu (A2), Sohan Dhruv (A3), Rajendra Kumar Dahriya @ Lata Dahriya @ Rajendra Diamond (A4), Ukesh @ Rakesh Dahriya (A5), Kamlesh @ Rocky Ghritlahre (A6), Gopi Sahu (A7), Piyush Verma @ Mintu (A8) and Jagannath Yadav @ Molu @ Jagdev Yadav(A9) have preferred these four criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Special Case (Atrocities) No.52/2020, by which the Special Judge has convicted appellants as follows:-
4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that both the victims of the case used mobile number 9691533869 on which on 30.05.2020 at about 11:00 pm, accused Kamlesh alias Rocky called from his mobile number 9826259323. When the call was received by victim (PW-1), the abovementioned accused told her to stay outside the house as he and accused Gopi were coming to pick them up on a motorcycle. Both the victims refused but they started harassing them by calling repeatedly. When both the victims were strolling on the road outside the house, at that time accused Kamlesh Ghritalhar and Gopi Sahu came and forcibly made both the victims sit on their motorcycle and took them to the house of accused Gopi Sahu in village Amera where after sitting for about half an hour, accused Gopi Sahu and Rocky took both the victims near the cremation ground Bhatha of Amera where for about half an hour victim (PW-2) sat with accused Gopi Sahu and victim (PW-1) sat with accused Rocky. They kept talking and kissing. Thereafter, the accused Rocky and Gopi Sahu were going to leave the two victims in village Kesla on the same motorcycle, when the remaining 6 accused Ukesh alias Rakesh Dahriya, Shivam Verma, Rajendra alias Lala Dahriya, Jagannath Yadav, Sohan Dhruv, Ajay Verma along with juvenile delinquents Sundaram Verma and Kaushal Dhruv forcibly stopped the motorcycle near Kesla gate and in the meantime, the accused Jagannath Yadav pulled the victim (PW-1) off the motorcycle and the accused Ajay Verma pulled the victim (PW-2) off the motorcycle. At the same time, a tractor was coming from village Kesla. Seeing this, the 6 accused abused and chased away the accused Rocky and Gopi. After that accused Ukesh alias Rakesh
