Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J
Sukhnath – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 197 of 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Neeraj Mehta
For the Respondents: Himanshu Yadu
A conviction for sexual assault based on the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix requires the evidence to be of 'sterling quality', consistent, and trustworthy, failing which, in the absence of independent medical or material corroboration, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(1), 450, 342, 323 - Conviction for rape - Appeal - Standard of proof for sole testimony of prosecutrix - Apex Court emphasize that conviction can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix only if it is of 'sterling quality', unblemished, and inspires absolute confidence - Testimony must remain consistent and withstand rigorous cross-examination without any material discrepancies. (Paras 16, 17)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Lack of medical corroboration - Absence of FSL report - Failure to examine material witnesses - Prosecution failed to examine husband and sister of victim despite them being key witnesses - Independent witness turned hostile - Testimony of prosecutrix was found to be inconsistent and lacked independent corroboration necessary to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 13, 15, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court under various sections for committing rape and associated offences. The case rested primarily on the testimony of the prosecutrix. Issues raised included the reliability of the prosecutrix's statement, lack of medical evidence, failure to produce FSL reports, and failure to examine crucial supporting witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the prosecutrix to be unreliable, lacking corroboration, and inconsistent with material evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained based on the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix given the lack of medical evidence and failure to corroborate her version via other witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for sexual assault cannot be sustained on the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix if such testimony is found to be unreliable, inconsistent, lacks independent corroboration, and fails to meet the 'sterling witness' standard set by the Supreme Court.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of trial court convictions and prosecution case. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments and procedural background of the appeal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. critical evaluation of evidentiary inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. application of legal principles concerning reliability of sole testimony. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. final acquittal and procedural orders for compliance. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| The date when the judgment is reserved | The date when the judgment is pronounced | The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operative | Full | ||
| 30.01.2026 | 25.03.2026 | -- | 25.03.2026 |
1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.08.2007 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Distt-Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 227/2006, whereby the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s 376(1) of IPC | R.I. for 07 years & fine to the tune of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. |
| U/s 450 of IPC | R.I. for 07 years & fine to the tune of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. |
| U/s 342 of IPC | R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional S.I. for 15 days. |
| U/s 323 of IPC | R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional S.I. for 15 days. |
(All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.)
2. According to the prosecution case, as revealed from the impugned judgment and the records of the case, on 15.03.2006 at about 3:00 p.m., during the Holi festival in village Kunkuri khurd, the prosecutrix was alone at her house as her husband went outside to attend nature’s call. At that time, the accused/appellant, accompanied by Dhaneshwar Kanwar, came to the house of the prosecutrix on the pretext of playing Holi. Basanti Kanwar was also present at the house of the prosecutrix at that time. However, after a short while, both Dhaneshwar Kanwar and Basanti Kanwar left the place. The accused/appellant took undue advantage of the opportunity when he found the prosecutrix alone and attempted to close the front door. At that time, Jhonkoram Manjhi and Anganu Bargah from his village arrived to play Holi and witnessed the accused/appellant closing the door from the inside. Thereafter, with an ill will, the accused/appellant threw the prosecutrix on the ground, removed her undergarments, and committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her. When the prosecutrix protested, the accused/appellant beat her and bit her cheeks. Thereafter, the prosecutrix opened the back door of her house and went to her sister’s house. The accused/appellant followed her there, where the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her sister. Upon being rebuked and abused by the sister of the prosecutrix, the accused/appellant fled from the spot. Subsequently, the husband of the prosecutrix came to her sister’s house in search of her, took her back home, and was informed by the prosecutrix about the entire incident. Later, the accused/appellant also threatened the husband of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the prosecutrix has lodged the oral report at Sitapur Police Station. On the basis of the above report, F.I.R vide Ex. P/09 was registered against the accused/appellant by (PW-06) M. R. Nayak, Inspector.
3. During the course of investigation, the Inspector M. R. Nayak went to the incident spot in village Kunkuri Khurd and prepared the spot map vide Ex. P/10 and on the same date for examination of the private parts of the prosecutrix (PW.-4), he took the written consent of the prosecutrix and her husband vide Ex. P/11, sent the application for permission to the SDM as per Ex. P/14 and on the same date, for
