A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma has dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Ritesh @ Pappu Manjhi, affirming his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for kidnapping and raping a seven-year-old girl. The Court reiterated that the credible and reliable testimony of the victim alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction in sexual assault cases under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Background of the Case
On 16 March 2022, the minor victim went alone to a local shop and returned home distressed. She disclosed to her mother that “Pappu Mama” had forcibly taken her to a room, removed her clothes, inserted his finger into her private parts, and forced her to put his penis in her mouth. The accused also threatened her not to tell anyone.
Later, the victim identified the accused at a neighbourhood wedding. Her mother filed a complaint on 3 April 2022. An FIR was registered under Section 376AB IPC and Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Korba, convicted the appellant on 9 October 2023. The following sentences were imposed:
- Section 366 IPC: 10 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹500 fine (6 months default sentence)
- Section 376AB IPC / Section 6 POCSO Act: Life imprisonment till natural death and ₹500 fine (6 months default sentence)
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Appellant’s Arguments
- The victim’s age was not conclusively proved — no ossification test was done.
- The testimony of the victim was allegedly inconsistent and lacked corroboration.
- The trial court wrongly relied on a single witness without sufficient support.
State’s Response
- The victim’s birth certificate showed her date of birth as 24 June 2014, proving she was 7 years and 8 months old at the time.
- Her consistent and reliable statement required no corroboration under law.
- The conviction was based on established judicial principles.
Court’s Analysis
1. Victim’s Age
The Court relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263, and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules. It held:
“There is no reason to disbelieve the date of birth of the victim as 24.06.2014.”
This made the child 7 years and 8 months old on the date of the offence.
2. Kidnapping Conviction
Quoting S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942:
“It would, however, be sufficient if the prosecution establishes that though immediately prior to the minor leaving the father’s protection no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so.”
Thus, the conviction under Section 366 IPC was justified.
3. Sexual Assault
The Court recorded that the victim’s description of forced oral sex and digital penetration was:
- Immediate;
- Unshaken during cross-examination;
- Consistent with the mother’s corroborating testimony.
4. Sole Testimony Sufficient
The Court relied on:
- Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573
- State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, (2019) 11 SCC 575
- Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 34
It reiterated:
“Testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.”
Final Judgment
The appeal was dismissed. The Court held:
“The prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error.”
The Court directed that the appellant continue serving the sentence and be informed of his right to appeal before the Supreme Court through legal aid.
