The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed an appeal filed by Shani Kumar Chauhan, upholding his conviction and sentence for the kidnapping and repeated rape of a minor girl. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that the victim’s consistent and credible testimony, which qualified her as a “sterling witness,” was sufficiently corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, thereby proving the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appellant had been convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) in Saraipali, District Mahasamund, on May 13, 2022, and sentenced to concurrent prison terms, including 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a written report filed by the victim’s father at the Saraipali police station on December 10, 2019. He stated that his daughter, aged about 11, had disappeared while playing in front of her house at approximately 12:00 noon. Based on this report, First Information Report (FIR) No. 379/2019 was registered. During the investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the appellant, Shani Kumar Chauhan.
The trial court found Chauhan guilty and convicted him under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366-A (procuration of minor girl), 376(3) (rape of a child under sixteen years), and 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) of the IPC, as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, 7 years, 10 years, and 20 years, respectively, for these offences, with all sentences to run concurrently.
Arguments Before the High Court
Appearing for the appellant, counsel Mr. Anish Tiwari argued that the victim’s statement was filled with contradictions and omissions, making it unreliable. He contended that the prosecution had failed to definitively prove the victim’s age, pointing to different dates of birth mentioned in the birth certificate and the school’s dahil kharij register. It was further argued that the birth certificate, having been issued six years after the victim’s birth, could not be considered valid under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The appellant’s counsel placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nirmal Premkumar and Another v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and the Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling in Kundan Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh.
Representing the State, Deputy Government Advocate Mr. S.S. Baghel opposed the appeal, submitting that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. He asserted that the documentary evidence, including the victim’s birth certificate, was concrete proof that she was a minor at the time of the incident and that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court first addressed the question of the victim’s age. The bench noted that the prosecutrix had stated her age as 11 to the doctor, the same age was mentioned in the FIR, and this fact was unchallenged during cross-examination. The court considered her Birth Certificate (Ex.P-26), which recorded her date of birth as September 19, 2008, and the Dakhil Kharij (Ex. P-10C), which mentioned August 18, 2009.
While acknowledging that the birth certificate was issued six years after her birth, the court observed it was obtained “much prior to the date of incident.” The bench distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the appellant, stating, “A birth certificate’s validity cannot be dismissed solely for non-compliance with Section 13(3) of Act 1969, especially in a POCSO case where other compelling evidence of victim’s age exists.” The court concluded, “it is clearly established that she was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident and, therefore, a minor in terms of law.”
The court then evaluated the evidence regarding the commission of the offence. It meticulously examined the testimony of the victim (PW-1), who stated that after consuming a chocolate given to her by her young nephew, she felt dizzy and lost consciousness. She regained consciousness at a brick kiln in Bagoda with the appellant, who informed her he had brought her there. She testified that the appellant confined her for about 15 days, forced her to work, assaulted her, and repeatedly raped her. She eventually managed to borrow a phone from a woman named “Lima Madam” to call her brother, leading to her rescue.
The court observed that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. corroborated these facts. Her account was further substantiated by medical and forensic evidence. Dr. Chandra Kiran (PW-11), who examined the victim, testified that while there were no external injuries, her hymen was torn, and there was redness with pain at the genital opening. The doctor opined there were “signs suggestive of forced sexual intercourse.” Furthermore, the FSL report (Ex. P-27) confirmed that “semen stains or human sperm were detected on Ex.-A (vaginal slide) B, C and D.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi), the High Court emphasized the concept of a “sterling witness,” whose testimony is of such high quality that it can be accepted without hesitation. The bench found that the victim in this case met that standard. The judgment noted, “In the case at hand, particularly from the testimony of the victim, it is evident that she has remained consistent in her stand from the beginning to the end.” The court also observed that while there were minor variations in the statements of other family members, “such discrepancies are natural given the passage of time and their indirect involvement.”
The Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Division Bench held that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The court stated, “Considering the consistent and credible account of the victim, supported by medical and forensic evidence, the appeal filed by the appellant lacks merit and is therefore liable to be dismissed.”
The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The registry was directed to send a copy of the judgment to the concerned jail superintendent to inform the appellant of his right to appeal the decision before the Supreme Court.
