2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 17630

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Puneshwar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 718 of 2016|ACQA No. 7 of 2021

In cases of sexual assault, the absence of physical injuries does not invalidate the victim's testimony. When the evidence is cogent and consistent, an appellate court can reverse an acquittal if the lower court's reasoning is perverse, and a lesser conviction for outraging modesty merges into the proven offence of rape.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 354, 506-B - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(xi), 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) - Rape and outraging modesty - Absence of external injuries on the victim is not a conclusive factor for acquittal in sexual assault cases - Sole testimony of the victim, if found trustworthy, consistent, and cogent, can form the basis of conviction. (Paras 27, 28, 41)

(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Appellate court has the power and duty to correct findings of acquittal if they are found to be perverse, based on misappreciation of material evidence, or if the trial court ignored relevant facts, even if interference should be exercised with caution. (Paras 37, 45, 46)

(C) Criminal Law - Merger of offences - Once the act of rape is held to be proved, an earlier conviction for outraging the modesty of a woman under a lesser charge stands subsumed into the graver offence and does not survive independently. (Paras 52, 53)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was preferred by the state against the acquittal of the accused for charges of rape and criminal intimidation, and an appeal was filed by the accused against his conviction for outraging modesty and statutory offences. The victim alleged that the accused entered her house, dragged her into a room, and committed sexual intercourse against her will, while issuing threats to kill her. The trial court had acquitted the accused of rape charges due to lack of injury, convicting him for a lesser offence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the perpetrator's culpability for rape was substantiated by the victim's consistent testimony and corroborated by forensic evidence showing the presence of semen/sperm. The trial court's reliance on the absence of physical injuries was deemed perverse given the settled legal position that physical resistance or injury is not a sine-qua-non to prove rape. The charges under the social legislation were not established as the necessary foundational elements, such as caste-based targeting or dominant position, were absent.

Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for rape was based on a perverse appreciation of evidence, and whether the testimony of the victim and forensic findings warranted a conviction for the graver offence of rape.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of injuries does not discredit the testimony of a victim in a sexual assault case. Since the testimony was found trustworthy and supported by forensic evidence, the acquittal was unjustified. The lesser offence of outraging modesty merges into the graver offence of rape when the latter is proven.

Result: State's appeal allowed. Accused convicted under Sections 376 and 506-B of the IPC; accused's appeal challenging conviction under Section 354 of the IPC dismissed as having become infructuous.