A conviction for sexual offences based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix requires the evidence to be of 'sterling quality', highly consistent, and unblemished; if the testimony is riddled with material contradictions or insufficient to inspire confidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

CAV Judgment

1. The appellant by way of this appeal has challenged the judgment dated 31.03.2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 125/2004 whereby and whereunder, appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the victim who was aged about 20 years submitted a report before the Police Station, Dongargaon on 16.11.2003 bearing Crime No. 232/2003 contending that on 08.11.2003, her parents had gone to Gram Pathari, her elder brother Hiraram had gone to attend a Ramayan competition and at home, a part from her, only her grandmother was present. She was in the courtyard of her house, cleaning the utensils. At about 10:00 PM, the accused Mool Chand came there and caught hold of her hand and started pulling her. When she screamed and tried to resist, Mool Chand threatened to kill her. He dragged her towards the backyard and took her to the field of Shankar Marar, where he threw her down and forcibly committed rape on her. Later, her elder brother Hiraram returned home after attending the Ramayan competition. She narrated the incident to him. When her parents returned from the village, she also informed them about the incident. On Sunday night, a village meeting (Panchayat) was convened where she informed the villagers about the incident. During the meeting, the villagers questioned Mool Chand about the incident, but he denied the allegations. On the advice of the villagers to lodge a report, she filed a report at Police Station. Based on the report FIR Ex.P/6 was registered. After completion of usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 376, 506-B of the IPC against the accused person before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Rajnandgaon. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 17.07.2004 committed trial to the learned Sessions Judge which was registered as Sessions Trial No. 125/2004. The accused denied the charges leveled against him and faced trial.

3. To bring home the charges against appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses namely PW/1 Motin Bai, PW/2 Hiraram, PW/3 Rekha Thakur, PW/4 Jhaduram, PW/5 Nilkanth Janbandhu, PW/6 Puran Das, PW/7 Dwarka Prasad, PW/8 Jaipal Singh, PW/9 Dr. Sushma Kumre, PW/10 Dr. Praveen Goswami, PW/11 the victim, PW/12 C.S. Uike, Assistant Sub Inspector and exhibited documents Ex.P/1 & 2 Seizure Memo, Ex.P/3 Najri Naksa, Ex.P/4 Medical Examination Report of the victim, Ex.P/5 Medical Examination Report of the accused, Ex.P/6 FIR, Ex.P/7 consent of mother for medical examination, Ex.P/8 Crime Detail form, Ex.P/9 memo of IO to the Govt. Hospital, Ex.P/10 application of IO to the SDM for medical examination of the victim, Ex.P/11 forwarding memo to FSL, Raipur. Ex.P/12 FSL Report, Ex.P/13 Arrest Memo. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and exhibited documents Ex.D/1 Police Statement of Hiraram, Ex.D./2 Police Statement of Dwarka Prasad and Ex.D./3 Police Statement of the victim.

4. Upon appreciation of the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant remained in jail from 08.12.2003 to 09.12