2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Dipankar Vishwas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 277 of 2024|CRA No. 280 of 2024

The testimony of a victim of sexual assault, if found reliable, holds a superior status and does not require corroboration for conviction. When such testimony is supported by conclusive scientific evidence like DNA profiling and consistent circumstantial evidence, the prosecution's case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376-D (Gang Rape), Section 342, 384, 506 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66(E) - Gang rape and extortion - Conviction - Testimony of victim - Corroboration - DNA evidence - Held, testimony of a victim of sexual assault stands on a higher pedestal and, if found reliable, requires no corroboration - Minor discrepancies in evidence should not be given importance if they do not shake the basic version of the prosecution - DNA evidence is a scientifically accurate and reliable means of establishing guilt and should be accepted unless there is evidence of tampering or improper quality control - Absence of smegma on the penis of accused persons within 24 hours of incident is as a relevant incriminating circumstance indicating recent sexual activity. (Paras 17, 18, 26, 38, 39, 44)

(B) Evidence - Evaluation of - Discrepancies and contradictions - Minor variations in testimony are hallmark of truth - Approach must be whether evidence as a whole appears to have a ring of truth - Trivial discrepancies not touching the core of the case should be ignored. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for gang rape, wrongful confinement, extortion, and criminal intimidation. The victim was allegedly held in a room, forced to perform sexual acts, and filmed, under threats that the footage would be circulated unless money was transferred to the accused. Following an investigation, the accused were convicted based on the victim's testimony, forensic DNA evidence matching semen samples, mobile phone data, and financial transaction records of the extortion money. The appellants challenged the conviction citing inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and the lack of corroboration by independent witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The court found the victim's testimony to be sterling, consistent, and reliable. The ocular evidence was corroborated by medical findings of injuries on the victim's private parts and positive FSL and DNA reports linking both appellants to the crime. The financial trail of the extorted money and telephonic threats further substantiated the prosecution's case. The court rejected the defence theory of consent and held that the prosecution established the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: Whether the conviction is sustainable based on the victim's testimony, forensic DNA/FSL evidence, and the existence of material contradictions in the prosecution's case.

Ratio Decidendi: A victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice; her testimony, if credible and consistent, is sufficient for conviction without requiring corroboration. When supported by strong forensic and scientific evidence, including DNA profiling, and corroborated by circumstantial evidence like financial records, the prosecution's case is deemed proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeals dismissed.