The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur has dismissed four criminal appeals filed by nine convicts, upholding their convictions and life sentences for gangrape of two minor Dalit sisters. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru emphasized that under joint liability principles, all members of a group sharing common intention are equally liable for the offence.
Case Background
The appeals (CRA Nos. 390, 394, 440, and 820 of 2021) were filed by Ajay Verma @ Chhotu, Shivam Verma @ Monu, Sohan Dhruv, Rajendra Kumar Dahriya @ Lala Dahriya @ Rajendra Diamond, Ukesh @ Rakesh Dahriya, Kamlesh @ Rocky Ghritlahre, Gopi Sahu, Piyush Verma @ Mintu, and Jagannath Yadav @ Molu, challenging the judgment dated March 10, 2021, passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Balodabazar in Special Case (Atrocities) No. 52/2020.
Prosecution Case
According to the prosecution, on May 30, 2020, the two minor victims were called and taken by Kamlesh Ghritlahre and Gopi Sahu without the consent of their lawful guardian. On the way back, they were intercepted by the other accused, dragged away, and subjected to offences, including aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
One of the accused, Rajendra Dahriya, recorded video clips of the crime, which were later used by Piyush Verma to blackmail the victims. An FIR was filed on July 29, 2020, after the victims disclosed the incident to their parents.
Arguments by the Appellants
Counsel for the appellants, Mr. A.S. Rajput, Mr. Samir Singh, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, and Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, argued that:
- There was a delay of more than two months in lodging the FIR.
- Medical reports did not support the prosecution version.
- There were omissions and contradictions in witness statements.
- The school documents proving the victims’ ages were not properly proved.
They submitted that convictions were based solely on the testimonies of the prosecutrix, without independent corroboration.
State’s Reply
State Counsel Mr. Shailendra Sharma argued that the victims were proven minors as per Ex.P-44C and Ex.P-118C (school records) and belonged to Scheduled Caste category, supported by caste certificates (Ex.P-23, Ex.P-24). He submitted that:
“The prosecution has proved that the victims were minor at the time of incident and the same is fortified by Ex. P-44C and Ex.P-118C i.e. School Admission Registers in which the date of birth of victim (PW-1) is mentioned as 05.09.2003 and date of birth of victim (PW-2) is mentioned as 24.06.2005 which makes it crystal clear that the victims were below 18 years of age on the date of incident i.e. on 30.05.2020.”
The State also relied on electronic evidence, call data records, and the testimony of prosecution witnesses, including the victims and their father.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court precedents, including Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263 and Usman v. State of Uttarakhand 2021 SCC OnLine Utt 142, regarding determination of age under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act.
On the victims’ Scheduled Caste status, the Court noted:
“It is proved that the victims belong to the Schedule Caste category.”
Regarding the role of each accused and common intention, the Court cited Section 361 IPC and clarified:
“Even if both the accused, PW-1 and PW-2, had agreed to go with Kamlesh and Gopi voluntarily, yet these accused had no right to take them in this manner at night without the consent of the lawful guardian of PW-1 and PW-2.”
On electronic evidence, the Court held that:
“Thus, the electronic evidence having been duly proved as per the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, as mentioned above, is admissible.”
Addressing the delay in lodging the FIR, the Court relied on State of H.P. v. Gian Chand and Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, observing:
“The mere delay in lodging the report by itself cannot give scope for an adverse inference leading to rejection of the prosecution case outright.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and upheld the convictions and sentences, holding that all appellants were liable under the principle of joint liability.
The appeals were dismissed as “vague, baseless and devoid of merits.”
