Victim's Sole Testimony Sufficient for Father's Rape Conviction Under S.376 IPC & POCSO Act, Despite Lack of Medical Corroboration: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-03-06

Latest Legal Developments.

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Father's Life Sentence for Raping Minor Disabled Daughter, Emphasizes Victim 's Testimony

BILASPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant judgment, has upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to a father, Rajesh Rajwade , for repeatedly raping his minor daughter, who also suffered from physical disabilities. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , dismissed the appeal (CRA No. 1027 of 2021), finding the victim's testimony credible and sufficient for conviction under various subsections of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, despite lack of strong medical corroboration.

Case Background

The appellant, Rajesh Rajwade , challenged the judgment dated 18.08.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Special Court (POCSO Act), Ambikapur. The trial court had convicted him under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(g), 376(2)(l), 376(2)(n), and 323 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the rape charges and one year RI for causing hurt.

The prosecution's case detailed a harrowing ordeal where the father, after being released from jail for murdering his father-in-law and following the death of the victim's grandmother, began sexually abusing his minor daughter (PW-8). The abuse, which started around 2016, involved repeated rape, physical assault, and intimidation. The father allegedly told the victim she was his "wife, not daughter." The victim eventually fled to her elder father's (PW-2) house and disclosed the abuse. After a failed Panchayat attempt and initial refusal by the Lakhanpur police to register an FIR, the matter reached the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Surguja , which directed the police to take legal action, leading to the registration of FIR No. 95/2017.

Arguments Presented

Appellant's Counsel (Mr. Akhilesh Mishra ): Argued the conviction was perverse, citing:

Delay in lodging the FIR, which was not adequately explained.

Lack of eyewitnesses.

Absence of injury marks on the victim's private parts as per the medical report (Dr. Kiran Bhjgavali, PW-04).

Negative FSL report (Ex-P/23) showing no human semen on the vaginal slide.

Failure by the prosecution to conclusively prove the victim's age.

Overall improper appreciation of evidence by the trial court.

State Counsel (Mr. Hariom Rai ): Countered that:

The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The victim's testimony (PW-8), including her statement under Section 164 CrPC (Ex.P-17), was clear, consistent, and reliable.

The trial court rightly convicted the appellant based on the available material.

High Court's Analysis and Findings

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal principles:

1. Victim's Age: The Court relied heavily on the school's Dakhil Kharij register (Ex.P-7C), presented by Assistant Teacher Rakesh Dubey (PW-5) and seized by the IO (PW-9). This document, admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, established the victim's date of birth as 12.06.2002. The Court calculated her age at the time of the incident (starting 28.10.2016) as 14 years, 04 months, and 16 days, confirming she was a minor under 18. The defence failed to effectively challenge this evidence.

2. Victim's Disability: The Court noted medical evidence (PW-4) and testimony from the victim (PW-8) and her elder father (PW-2) establishing her physical disabilities (left-side paralysis, epilepsy). While no specific disability certificate was seized, the unchallenged evidence proved she was a minor girl suffering from physical disability at the time of the offence, bringing the act within the definition of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act (referencing Section 5(k) as discussed in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India ).

3. Reliability of Victim's Testimony: The core of the judgment rested on the victim's testimony (PW-8). The Court found her account consistent, detailed, and corroborated by her statements to her elder mother (PW-3), elder father (PW-2), and the CWC member (PW-10). The Court cited landmark Supreme Court judgments ( Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi , State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar , Shivasharanappa v. State of Karnataka ) emphasizing that the sole, credible testimony of a rape victim ("sterling witness") can form the basis for conviction without mandatory corroboration, especially medical evidence.

> The Court observed: "It is pertinent to observe that the question whether conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault/rape is no longer res integra... the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if found reliable can be the sole ground for convicting the accused..."

4. Medical and Forensic Evidence: While acknowledging the lack of external injuries and the negative FSL report, the Court highlighted the medical officer's (PW-4) opinion based on examination findings (old torn hymen, patchy vaginal opening) that "there had been continuous sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix." The absence of semen or immediate injury did not negate the possibility of rape, particularly given the repeated nature of the alleged assaults over time.

5. Gravity of POCSO Offences: The Bench referenced Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand and State of UP v. Sonu Kushwaha , reinforcing the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act to protect children stringently and the judicial imperative to impose adequate punishment without undue leniency in proven cases of child sexual abuse.

Final Decision

Based on the comprehensive analysis, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The victim's testimony was deemed credible and sufficient. The Court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court's findings.

> "On the basis of analysis of evidence presented by the prosecution... we are of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant... We do not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court."

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and life sentence under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(g), 376(2)(l), 376(2)(n), and 323 of the IPC were upheld. The appellant, currently in jail, was ordered to serve out his sentence. The Court directed the Registry to inform the appellant of his right to appeal to the Supreme Court.