Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay S. Agrawal, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ
State Of Chhattisgarh – Appellant
Versus
Gangaram Sinha – Respondent
ACQA No. 363 of 2025 | CRA No. 607 of 2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
Indian Penal Code: S.376
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: S.14-A(1), S.3(2)(v)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: S.119, S.3
Constitution of India: Art.142, Art.15, Art.17, Art.21
Headnote
(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Offence against member of scheduled tribe - Mere proof of caste is insufficient - Must be established that offence was committed on ground of victim's caste identity - Nexus between offence and caste identity is essential ingredient. (Para 33)
(C) Appeal against acquittal - Principles for interference - Appellate court should be slow in reversing acquittal - Interference warranted only if judgment is perverse, based on misreading of material evidence, or if no other reasonable view is possible. (Paras 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
A member of a community belonging to a scheduled tribe, who was deaf and mute, was subjected to sexual assault by the respondent, who was known to the family for labor work. The incident was witnessed by the victim's brother, who found them in an enclosed space in a compromising position. The trial court convicted the respondent for rape but acquitted him of charges under the special legislation concerning atrocities against vulnerable communities.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the testimony of the disabled victim, recorded through a trained interpreter, was consistent, credible, and corroborated by the eyewitness account of the victim's brother, the medical report confirming intercourse, and forensic evidence identifying the presence of semen on the clothing of both the victim and the accused. The court further found that there was no evidence suggesting that the offense was specifically motivated by the victim's caste status.
Issues: Whether the conviction under the penal code for sexual assault was sustainable based on the testimony of a deaf and mute witness, and whether the acquittal under the special statute for caste-based atrocities was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence of a disabled witness, when interpreted accurately by a qualified professional and corroborated by physical and forensic findings, constitutes compelling proof of guilt. However, for a conviction under specific legislation against caste-based atrocities, the prosecution must prove a clear nexus between the crime and the victim's caste identity, beyond mere proof of the victim's social status.
Result: Both appeals, one against conviction and one against acquittal, were dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dharmesh Shrivastava, Krishna Tandon
For the Respondents: Krishna Tandon, Dharmesh Shrivastava
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and procedural history of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions by the state and the appellant. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. admissibility and evidentiary value of testimony by deaf and mute witnesses. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. sufficiency of victim testimony and internal corroboration for rape convictions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. procedural directives following the dismissal of the criminal appeal. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 6. scope of appellate interference in acquittals and essential requirements under sc/st act. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. final order dismissing both appeals. (Para 34 , 35) |
1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 17.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No.06/2020, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No.607 of 2024 has been preferred by the appellant/accused, Gangaram Sinha, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2022 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:–
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| Under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) | Rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months |
3. Acquittal Appeal No.363 of 2025 has been preferred by the State under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act, 1989”), questioning the acquittal of the accused, Gangaram Sinha, from the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that victim is a deaf and mute girl belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. On 26.02.2020, her mother Chameli Bai (PW-2) submitted a written complaint (Ex.P-6) at Police Station Gariyaband stating that the victim is her eldest daughter, deaf and mute since childhood, educated up to Class VIII and capable of understanding signs. On the date of incident i.e. 26.02.2020, she and her husband had gone to the agricultural field in the morning at about 7:00 a.m. At about 10:00 a.m., her son Satish (PW-3) came to the field and informed that the victim had gone to the toilet situated in the badi near their house and had not returned for some time. When he went near the toilet and knocked the door, he heard sounds from inside. Thereafter, through an opening in the rear wall, he saw accused- Gangaram Sinha and the victim inside the toilet without lower garments. Shortly thereafter, accused opened the door and fled away. It was further alleged that after returning home, when the victim was asked through signs, she disclosed that while she had gone to the toilet, accused followed her, pushed her inside, closed the door, forcibly removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse against her will. It was also stated that accused used to come near their house for mason work and was known to the family. On the basis of written complaint, FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against accused- Gangaram under Section 376 of IPC.
5. During the course of investigation, after obtaining consent of the victim and her mother, victim was sent for medical examination. PW-1 Dr. Neha Sharma examined her and opined that no injury was found on her private parts. Her hymen was found to be torn. The doctor stated that sexual intercourse had been committed with the victim; however, no signs of forcible sexual intercourse were noticed. The medical report is Ex.P-1. The caste certificate of the victim was seized vide Ex.P-4. Undergarment of the victim was seized vide Ex.P-13, and the vaginal slide was seized vide Ex.P-26. Accused/respondent was taken into custody vide Ex.P-3, and his underwear was seized vide Ex.P-17. The seized articles were sent to the FSL for chemical examination, and as per the FSL report (Ex.
