2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11848

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Rajni Dubey, JJ
Karan Singh Rajput – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA-1057-2021 | CRA-1418-2021

A conviction for rape may be sustained on the victim's testimony alone if found credible, notwithstanding the absence of forensic DNA evidence. However, charges under special statutes require strict proof of social status, and convictions for aggravated offences require formal charges and adherence to due process.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 294, 323, 342, 506 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) - Rape and Atrocity offences - Prosecution failed to conduct DNA profiling or semen matching in rape case despite availability of forensic evidence - Conviction based on victim’s sole testimony - Whether conviction sustainable in absence of medical corroboration - Conviction under special act fails if caste certificate is not proved by competent authority or in accordance with procedural law - (Paras 9, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charges - Failure to frame charge under Section 376D of Indian Penal Code - Whether conviction can be altered togang rape when co-accused were acquitted and primary charge was not framed - Court cannot convict for a graver offence where procedure provided for a fair trial involving framing of charge was not followed - (Paras 12, 13, 23, 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted of various offences, including sexual assault and atrocities against a member of the vulnerable community. The trial court acquitted two other co-accused persons. The accused appealed the conviction, while the victim sought enhancement of the conviction to gang rape and requested a longer sentence.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the conviction for rape and related offences based on the credible testimony of the victim, despite the lack of forensic DNA matching. However, it set aside the conviction under the special legislation due to the failure to prove the victim's social status certificate through a competent authority. The request to convert the conviction to gang rape was rejected as no charge was framed and the co-accused were already acquitted.

Issues: Whether, in the absence of DNA profiling, a conviction for rape can be sustained based solely on the victim's testimony? Whether an acquittal of co-accused prevents the conviction of the remaining accused for gang rape when such a charge was not formally framed?

Ratio Decidendi: While forensic evidence like DNA testing is highly desirable and constitutes a foolproof case, the testimony of a victim can be sufficient if it is found to be of sterling quality and inspires confidence. The failure to prove caste status through authoritative documentation renders convictions under special statutes unsustainable. Procedural fairness requires that an accused cannot be convicted for an aggravated offence such as gang rape if no charge was framed, particularly when co-accused have already been acquitted.

Result: Accused's appeal partly allowed, victim's appeal dismissed.