The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed the appeals of four men convicted for the abduction and gang rape of a minor in 2019, reiterating that “rape degrades the very soul of the victim.” In a detailed judgment, the court upheld the sentences handed down by the trial court under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, reinforcing the conviction of all accused.
The appeals, filed by Wasim Bhathi (31), Devnath @ Furru Sahu (35), Sonal Pal @ Utkarsh (25), and Jeevanlal Tandon (22), were rejected by a bench consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru. The accused were convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mahasamund, on February 19, 2021, for kidnapping and raping a minor girl. The High Court upheld the sentences, which ranged up to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for each of the accused.
Background of the Case:
On April 24, 2019, a 15-year-old girl from Tumgaon, District Mahasamund, was abducted by the four accused while she was on her way to a local shop. The prosecutrix was forcibly taken to a secluded area, where she was gang-raped by the men. The prosecutrix testified that the accused threatened her to ensure she remained silent after the assault. The case was reported to the police, leading to the arrest of the accused between late April and early May 2019.
The trial court had convicted the four men under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366-A (procuration of minor girl), 506 (Part II) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
A co-accused, Parvati Poyam (35), was also convicted for aiding the kidnapping by helping the men transport the victim. She had been sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment by the trial court.
Key Legal Issues Raised:
- Credibility of the Victim’s Testimony: The defence argued that inconsistencies in the victim’s statements undermined her credibility, suggesting that she may have been a consenting party.
- Establishing the Victim’s Age: The defence contested the age of the prosecutrix, asserting that the prosecution had not conclusively proven she was a minor at the time of the offence, a critical factor under the POCSO Act.
- Flaws in the Identification Parade: The defence also raised concerns about the identification of the accused, arguing that the prosecutrix had seen the men in police custody before the identification parade, tainting the process.
Court’s Observations:
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, delivering the judgment, dismissed the defence’s arguments, affirming the credibility of the victim’s testimony despite minor inconsistencies. He stated:
“The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix.”
The bench emphasized that the testimony of a rape survivor carries significant weight and that minor contradictions are common in such cases due to the trauma experienced by the victim. The court reiterated that rape cases must be handled with the utmost sensitivity, noting:
“A woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case.”
The court also ruled that the victim’s age had been adequately proven, based on school records presented by the prosecution, confirming that she was a minor at the time of the crime.
Regarding the identification of the accused, the court cited precedents from the Supreme Court, which established that the substantive evidence comes from in-court identification. The court held that the identification parade, while meant to bolster trust in the identification, was not essential in this case and that the victim had correctly identified the accused in court.
Final Judgment:
The court upheld the convictions and sentences handed down by the trial court. The four accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, with terms ranging up to 20 years. The bench concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed all the appeals.
Partial Relief for Co-Accused:
In a minor relief, the court modified the sentence of co-accused Parvati Poyam, who was convicted for her role in aiding the kidnapping. Since she had already served over three years in jail, her sentence was reduced to time served, and she was ordered to be released.
Legal Representation:
- For the Appellants: Mr. Pragalbh Sharma (representing Wasim Bhathi), Mr. J.K. Saxena (representing Devnath @ Furru Sahu and Sonal Pal @ Utkarsh), Mr. Bharat Rajput (representing Jeevanlal Tandon)
- For the Respondent (State of Chhattisgarh): Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General
