@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal A ea! No.353 of 1991 Pratap Singh S/o Shiv Charan Singh Rajput, aged about 30 years, R/o 3 Nnmber Dafai Kurasia, P.S. Chirirniri, Distt. Surguja, (C~G) \ V8. State of Madhya Pradcsh (now Chhaftisgarh) through RS. Chirimiri, Dishict Surguja (C.G) Resggndent: vyy, r Appearance: y ‘ Shri Chandlesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Shn' U.K.S; Chandel, Panel Lawyer, for the State. JUDGMENT (30.04.2007) Sum! Kumar Qinha, J, (1) V This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and oxder of sentence dated 23.3.1991 passed in Sessions Trial No.69] 1990 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Sarguja, whereby the said Court convicted the appellant u/s 363 and 376 !.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RJ, for 3 years and 10 years respectively. (2) The brief facts are that on 14.9.1989, a dinner was organized in the ill-laws place of the appellant, in which the family of the victim was-also invited. At about § p.m., the prosecutrix namely Ku.’[‘riloki, a girl aged about 8 years was taking food in the said dinner. The appellant came to her and enticed her by'saying that he will give sweets to her and took her to his own house and committed forcible sexual intercourse m/// @ against her. Thereafter, he leii the pmsecutrix near her house. The pmsecutrix narrated this stoxy to her mother and father. It was also disclosed to other pelsons. They all saw blood oozing out &om the vagina of the prosecutix, thereafter, she was taken to the Police station where the report Ex.P.1 was lodged. The blood stained undexwear of the prosecutn'x was also seized and she was sent for medical examination. The appellant was arrested on 27.11.1989 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was med and after conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted as aforementioned. -_ the 4 (3) The conviction of the appellant is based upon i testimony of the prosecutrix Ku.Tliloki (P.W.1], her mother Gulab Bai (P.W.2)a.nd Dr.(Smt.) Padma Gupta (P.W.3). (4) LeaI‘ned counsel for the appellant argued that, in fact, the testimony of the pmsecutxix is not trustworthy and the conviction based upon her testimony said to be supported by the witnesses i.e., mother and Doctor is bad in law which deserves to be set aside by this Court. (5) On the other hand, leained State Counsel submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and the same is duly supported by the medical evidence of Dr.Padma Gupta (P.W.3) and also her mother Gulab Bai (PM/.2) and them is hardly any mom for the appellant to assaitthe jpdgmcnt on these points. (6) l have heald learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe Sessions Court. (7) It comes in the evidence of P.W.1 Ku. ’I‘n'loki that in the said night, the appellant said to her that he will give her sweds and on this, she had gone along-With the appellant. She was taken by the appellant in his house where her clothes were removed, the appellant also removed his own cloths, thereafter, she was laid down and the appellant penetrated his Penis into her Vagina. She has stated that she had resisted the same and asked to leave her, but the appellant did not leave her. She has also deposed that after this, blood started coming out hum her Vagina and after all this, the appellant left her near her house. In para 3, she states thatwhen she reached to her house, the mother saw blood stains in her underwear and she narrated the entire story to her mother. She has also complained pains in her vagina. The mother told the story to the father. Thereafter, her father called other persons and then she was taken to the Police Station where she lodged the report (Ex.P.1). She has admitted that the F.I.R. bears her signature. Her underwear was seized and a document vide Ex.P.2 was prepared which also bears her signature. She also deposed that she was taken to Manendragarh Hospital where she was ‘medically examined. This evidence of prosecunix is supported by her mother Gulab Bai (P.W.2). She has deposed that the age of the prosecunix was about 8 years and she alongwith the prosecutrix and her husband had gone to the in-laws place of the appellant on the occasion of Chhatti ceremony in the said night. At that time, the a appellant was also there and he was teasmg the pmsecumx as \ / the prosecutrrx used to say her as bmther—m—law (Jya) After \ -L'- the dinner, she could notice that the pmsecuttix is not thcre, then she made a seaxch along-with the husband, but she cou1d not mm out her and they, in usual mannergetumed to the house. , After some time, the girl returned back and when she was asked as to where she was, she started weeping and nanated the stoxy to her. She saw the underwear of the girl which was stained with blood and fhereaher the story was disclosed to other persons namely O-P, Gopal, Pitambar and the elder brother of her husband etc. They also non'ced that blood is coming out from the Vagina of the girl. Dr. Smt. Padma Gupta (P.W.3) deposed that at the relevant time, she was posted in Community Health Center, Manendragarh. The pmsecutrix was brought to her alongwith a requisition (Ex.P.3), on which, she was medically examined. The Doctor has. identified the pmsecutrix in the Court also because she was also present on the date of her examination. According to her, there was swelling in libia minora and libia majora, they were intlamed. There was tenderness also and the hymen was tom. She non'ced that margins were irregular and fresh one, red in colour and bleed on touch. Tenderness was also present there. There was a tear of about 1 cm in the post vaginal wall w1th bleeding present. The vagina was congested. She had given her opinion‘that all these were signs of recent sexual intercourse. She has proved her report-as EX.P.3. (8) Nothing has been brought by the defence against the evidence of these witnesses which may discredit their testimony. \/ On the evidence of pmsecuhix, it is clear that it was a case of i a ( @ ’5'- complete penetration which she has disclosed in the Mt instance to her mother and themafter she has also disclosedf in the First Informau'on Report promptly lodged by her on 14.9.1989 itself. In the said. repoxt also the details have been given by her: Not only this, the evidence of lady Doctor is also suggestive of the fact that a complete penetration was done and the girl Was subjected to forcible sexual intemourse. (9) Why the evidence of the prosecuu'ix, duly supported by the mother and Doctor, should be disbelieved ? The cardinal principle of law is that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault , stands on par with evidence of an injured Witness. Just as a Witness who has sustained an injury is the best witness in the ”5(en'se that he is least likely to exculpatc the real o1i'ender, the evidence of a victim of a sex odender is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Please see Bharwada Bhmnbhai Hi@hal -Vs- state of Guiarg Am 1983 SC 753 mferred by the Apex court in the matter of We of Tamil Nude 4s Ravi @ Nehru zoogm sex 264 while deming with a case of rape victim, aged about 4-5 years. (10) Therefore, it is clear that where the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires the conndence of the Court, the corroboration as a condition for relying on her testimony is not a requirement of law, but is only a guidance of pmdence’because, apart n‘om many factors she being the vie! ' stands on par with an injured witness, and best among all for ascertaining the truth. ,éw (11) In the present case, the situation is far better. There is nothing ~in the evidence of pmsecutrix on which her testimony can be discarded. Her evidence has come in a natural manner making clear and unambiguous statement which inspires the , conhdence of the Court and even the conviction was possible Without any further corroboration. However, her testimony is duly corroborated by medical evidence which further strengthens the case of prosecution as the theory given by the prosecutn'x regarding complete penetration is supported by the Doctor. (12) I do not nnd any inhrmity in the judgment of convicn'on and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court. There is no rheritin the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 6% .Stil'- 1 Sunil Kumar Sinha w V. Judge \ , : Vi m—U .a-Km§ >