Conviction Can Very Well Be Based on the Unrebutted and Consistent Evidence of Prosecutrix Corroborated by Other Evidence: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the consistent and unrebutted testimony of a prosecutrix, when corroborated by medical and other documentary evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction in sexual offence cases. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajani Dubey delivered this ruling while partly allowing four criminal appeals filed by five appellants convicted of gang rape and other offences.

Background:

The appeals—CRA Nos. 102, 122, 263, and 289 of 2024—were filed by Vineet Kumar, Abbu Bakar @ Monty, Ashraf Ali @ Chhotu, Mohit Kumar Paikra @ Jain @ Jayant, and Masuk Raza Mansuri, challenging their conviction and sentence under multiple sections including IPC, POCSO Act, Information Technology Act, and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The case arose from a written complaint lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-2) on 01.10.2022 at Police Station Ajak, Surajpur. She alleged that the accused persons had abducted and gang raped her on three different occasions—19.12.2021, January 2022, and 01.02.2022—under threat of leaking an obscene video. A charge sheet was submitted after investigation, and the trial court convicted all five accused.

READ ALSO  Cheque Bounce: There Cannot Be a Hard and Fast Rule That a Cheque Which Is Issued as Security Can Never Be Presented by the Drawee of the Cheque: Chhattisgarh HC

Appellants’ Arguments:

Counsel for the appellants contended that the FIR was delayed and unsupported by reliable evidence. It was argued that:

• The prosecutrix’s statements were inconsistent and not credible.
  
• No satisfactory proof of her minority (below 18 years) was provided.
  
• The caste certificate proving Scheduled Tribe status was obtained after the FIR.
  
• DNA reports did not match any of the appellants.
  
• No obscene video was found on the seized mobile phones.
  

They relied on Alamelu v. State [(2011) 2 SCC 385], Lalliram v. State of MP [(2008) 10 SCC 69], and Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 21] to argue for acquittal.

State’s Response:

Deputy Advocate General Mr. Shashank Thakur supported the trial court’s findings. He submitted that:

• The prosecutrix’s statement was consistent and corroborated by other evidence.
  
• Medical evidence confirmed her pregnancy and subsequent childbirth.
  
• Despite DNA mismatch, the prosecutrix had clearly identified the accused and detailed the acts of rape and threats.
  

Court’s Observations and Findings:

1. Age of Prosecutrix:
   The Court noted discrepancies in the proof of minority. The dakhil kharij register and birth certificate (Ex-P/17 & Ex-P/19) lacked adequate foundational material. Relying on Alamelu v. State, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 at the time of the incident. Hence, the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was set aside.
   
2. Credibility of Prosecutrix’s Testimony:
   The Court held that the prosecutrix’s consistent testimony, corroborated by her pregnancy and medical reports, established the offence. The Court observed:
   
   
   “The prosecutrix clearly stated that the accused/appellants abducted her and committed gang rape on her on multiple occasions by threatening her with life and circulation of obscene video.”
   
   
   Minor contradictions were deemed natural due to delay in reporting. The Court added:
   
   
   “The appellants have also failed to prove as to why the prosecutrix is implicating them in a false case.”
   
   
3. SC/ST Act Charges:
   The Court observed that although a caste certificate was produced (Ex-P/44), it was issued after the incident, and no evidence showed that the offence was committed because the victim was a member of the Scheduled Tribe. Citing Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Raju @ Umakant v. State of MP [2025 INSC 615], the Court acquitted the appellants of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
   
4. Information Technology Act:
   Referring to the enquiry report dated 13.07.2023, the Court found that no obscene video was recovered from the seized mobile phones. Accordingly, the Court held that conviction under Section 67-B of the IT Act was unsustainable.
   

Decision:

• Convictions Affirmed: Sections 363, 366, 506, 376, and 376D of IPC.
  
• Convictions Set Aside:
  
  • Masuk Raza, Abbu Bakar, Ashraf Ali, Vineet Kumar: Acquitted under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Section 67-B of IT Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
    
  • Mohit Kumar: Acquitted under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 67-B of IT Act.
    

All sentences under IPC sections will run concurrently. Time already undergone in custody will be set off.

READ ALSO  Wife's Independent Social Activities Not Cruelty Against Husband: Allahabad High Court