The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the conviction and sentence of an appellant under Sections 450, 376(3) IPC and Section 506 Part 2 IPC for house trespass and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a child. The court found the victim's testimony credible and corroborated by medical, forensic, and CCTV evidence, dismissing the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
MANPREET KAUR
Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.03.03 15:39:23 +0530
2026:CGHC:10717-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1365 of 2025
Shubham Mandavi S/o Kantilal Mandavi Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Adaam Police Station Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ
02.03.2026
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special F.T.S.C.
2
(POCSO) Trial No. 58/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted as under:
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| Under Section 450 of | R.I. for 20 years and fine of |
| the IPC. | Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment |
| of fine amount, additional R.I. for oneyear. |
|
| Under Section 506 | Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years |
| Part 2 of the IPC. | and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 03 months. |
| Under Section 376(3) | Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years |
| of the IPC. | and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 03 months. |
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.08.2019, the father of the victim lodged a written complaint at Police StationDongargaon stating that on 04.08.2019, at about 2:30 PM, when he and other family members had gone to their agricultural field, the accused persons entered his house. Upon checking the CCTV footage installed in his shop on the next day, he noticed that accused Shubham Mandavi had entered the house through a side door, while co-accused Gopi Ram Sahu remained outside and engaged the victim’s brother in conversation so as to facilitate the entry of the main accused.
3
3. On being questioned by her father, the victim disclosed that accused Shubham Mandavi had entered the house, approached her inside, and committed sexual assault upon her. It was further alleged that the co-accused assisted in the commission of the offence by keeping her brother occupied outside the house. After the incident, the accused fled from the spot in haste and allegedly left behind his slippers, which were later removed by another coaccused in order to cause disappearance of evidence.
4. On the basis of the written complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 259/2019 was registered initially under Sections 354 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, the victim’s statement was recorded by a female police officer and subsequently under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The victim was medically examined. The investigating agency prepared the spot map and seized relevant articles including the victim’s clothes, samples for forensic examination, electronic devices containing CCTV footage, and documents relating to the age of the victim.
5. Upon collection of sufficient material, the accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused under Sections 450, 376 and allied provisions of the IPC along with relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Against co-accused Gopi Ram Sahu for abetment and allied offences and against
4
accused Gopeshwar alias Golu under Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence.
6. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses including the victim, her parents, medical experts, investigating officers, and other formal witnesses in support of its case.
7. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in opening para of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and facts available on record and suffers from serious legal infirmities. It is contended that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the appellant under Sections 376(3) and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 despite material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim. It is further argued that the evidence of the father of the victim discloses prior enmity between the families, and the father of the appellant had earlier lodged an FIR against the father of the victim, thereby suggesting false implication on account of previous dispute. Learned counsel submits that the FIR was initially registered only under Sections
5
354 and 454 IPC with specific allegations of outraging modesty, and the addition of Section 376 IPC at a later stage during investigation indicates embellishment and afterthought. It is also contended that the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, as no birth certificate was seized and the author of the admission-discharge register (Ex.P/11-C) was not examined, yet the learned trial Court erroneously relied upon the said document. Further, it is submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case inasmuch as PW-2, medical officer found no external or internal injuries on the body of the prosecutrix, and the FSL report does not detect the presence of human sperm on the body or garments of the prosecutrix. It is thus argued that in view of the absence of medical corroboration, contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses, and lack of reliable proof regarding age, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the learned trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant, warranting interference by this Court.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the victim (PW-1) has clearly deposed the conduct of the appellant in her statement and the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly
6
convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
11. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix deserves acceptance and whether the prosecution has established the case of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
12. It is pertinent to observe that the question whether conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault/rape is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in a catena of judgments and has held that the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable can be the sole ground for convicting the accused and that the creditworthy testimony of the victim in cases of such nature deserves acceptance.
13. The next issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the age of the victim on the date of commission of the offence concerned, was below 16 years of age.
14. Regarding the age of the victim, the prosecution examined the victim (PW-4), her father (PW-1), her school teacher (PW-3), her mother (PW-8), her brother (PW-7), independent village witnesses, and the Investigating Officer (PW-15). The prosecution
7
also produced a certified copy of the school admission register (Dakhil Kharij Register) marked as Ex.P/11(C).
15. The victim (PW-4) categorically stated that her date of birth is 05.02.2007. Her father (PW-1) deposed that she was about 12 years old at the time of the incident. Her brother (PW-7) also supported the same date of birth. The mother (PW-8) stated that the victim was about 11 years old at the relevant time. Though minor variations appear in the oral estimation of age by relatives, the consistent assertion is that the victim was a minor at the time of the occurrence.
16. The school teacher (PW-3) produced the certified extract of the admission register (Ex.P/11(C)), wherein the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 05.02.2007 at Serial No. 441. The seizure of the said register vide Ex.P/07 has been duly proved by the Investigating Officer (PW-15) and seizure witness (PW-22).
17. Thus, on the date of the incident, the victim was approximately 12 years and 6 months old. She was therefore clearly below 18 years of age and also below 16 years.
18. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully proved that the victim was a “child” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on the date of the incident. The finding of the learned trial Court on the issue of age does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and warrants no interference.
8
19. The next question for consideration is whether on the date and place of incident, the accused committed house-trespass and an offence of sexual nature against the minor victim, thereby committing offences punishable under the IPC?
20. In this regard, the victim (PW-4), aged 12 years at the time of the incident, deposed that on 04.08.2019, she was at home with her brother while her parents and grandmother were working in the fields. While studying in her room, she felt thirsty and went to the kitchen. At that moment, accused Shubham Mandavi entered the house through the courtyard. She panicked and called out to her brother. The accused then attempted to restrain her by holding her hands and arms. The victim managed to free herself and attempted to close the door of her room. The accused forcibly opened the door, causing her to fall. The victim described that the accused tore her clothing, pressed her hands and legs, and threatened her with serious consequences if she disclosed the incident. Despite her efforts to resist, the accused committed the assault.
21. The victim stated that after the incident, she remained silent due to fear of threats by the accused to harm her and her family. Only after encouragement from her parents, grandmother, and aunt did she narrate the full incident to her family. Subsequently, she accompanied her father to the police station to file a report and consented to a medical examination. During her testimony, she
9
identified the accused and recounted all events in detail, describing her fear, distress, and the sequence of actions, including the accused leaving the premises after her brother’s intervention. The victim’s account was corroborated by her family and other witnesses.
22. Father of the Victim (PW-1) confirmed that he was not present at home during the incident, as he and his wife and mother were in the fields. Upon returning the next day, he reviewed CCTV footage from his shop and observed the accused entering the courtyard of his house while Gopi Ram engaged his son, Girjashankar, in conversation. PW-1 testified that the accused entered the house through the side door and, based on the footage and the victim’s later narration, committed the assault.
23. PW-1 stated that his daughter initially disclosed only part of the incident due to fear. The complete narration came after the family provided reassurance. PW-1 confirmed that he submitted a written complaint (Exhibit P-01), provided the CCTV footage and pen drive (Exhibit P-06), and gave consent for the victim’s medical examination (Exhibit P-02). He emphasized that the CCTV recordings were authentic, untampered, and kept securely under his custody. PW-1’s statement provides a clear timeline and corroborates the victim’s account, including the accused’s conduct before and after the incident.
10
24. Mother of the Victim (PW-8) deposed that on the evening of the incident, she returned home and found the victim frightened, distressed, and reluctant to eat. She noticed her daughter’s clothing was disheveled and she appeared nervous. PW-8 confirmed that the victim did not disclose the full incident immediately due to fear. The next day, after the father viewed CCTV footage, the victim narrated the complete incident to her parents and grandmother. PW-8 corroborated the victim’s description of the accused restraining her, forcibly entering the room, and threatening her. She confirmed that the family encouraged the victim to report to the police and accompanied her for medical examination, demonstrating the victim’s credibility and fear.
25. Elder brother of the Victim (PW-7), stated that he was present in the shop at the time of the incident, playing on his mobile phone. He testified that accused Gopi Ram engaged him in conversation while the main accused entered the house. PW7 did not witness the assault directly but heard his sister calling out for help. He confirmed that he learned the full incident only after his mother informed him. PW7 also corroborated the sequence of events regarding accused Gopeshwar Chandravanshi arriving later at the shop to collect slippers and the involvement of Gopi Ram in distracting him. PW7’s testimony supports the narrative of the accused entering the house and committing the offense while others were distracted.
11
26. Investigating Officer (PW15) deposed that the CCTV footage and pen drive were seized under proper procedure from PW-1. The seized materials covered the time period of the incident and demonstrated the accused’s presence at the shop and the courtyard of the house. The officer confirmed the authenticity of the seized materials and that they were preserved securely. PW15 corroborated PW-1’s and PW-4’s statements regarding the accused’s conduct before, during, and after the incident, including the entry and exit from the house. The testimony of the investigating officer adds credibility to the evidence and timeline of events.
27. Neighbors (PW6, PW9, PW10, PW12) provided independent corroboration of the accused’s presence at the victim’s residence. PW-12 stated that he observed the accused entering the house, while PW-6, PW-9, and PW-10 reported seeing the accused leaving by jumping over the boundary wall. These statements were consistent during cross-examination and supported the victim’s and father’s accounts regarding the accused’s conduct before and after the incident. The neighbors’ observations add external validation to the sequence of events and the accused’s movements.
28. Medical Officer (PW2 – Dr. Priyanka Toppo) deposed that on 06.08.2019 at 13:30 hours, the victim, a minor aged 12 years, was brought to the examining officer, Dr. Priyanka Toppo (PW-2), by
12
Lady Constable Dileshwari No. 1252 of Dongargaon Police Station. In compliance with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, prior informed consent was obtained from the legal guardian (father) of the victim (Exhibit P-02). The examination was conducted in a controlled clinical setting, maintaining the dignity and privacy of the minor.
29. The external examination revealed age-appropriate secondary sexual characteristics, including axillary and pubic hair development and progressive breast development. No lacerations, abrasions, contusions, or other external injuries were observed on the body. A distinct black mole was present on the forehead. The absence of visible injuries was noted in the clinical record.
30. The internal examination indicated partially separated labia majora and labia minora. The hymen was observed to be torn, and the cervical os was closed. During the examination, a finger was visible within the vaginal canal. No active bleeding or perineal trauma was present, consistent with post-incident bathing.
31. Two vaginal slides were prepared from the posterior vaginal wall and pharyngeal region of the victim. Each slide was sealed, labeled, and submitted to the relevant female constable for transportation to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Chain of custody procedures were strictly followed to ensure the integrity and admissibility of samples in court (Exhibit P-10).
13
32. The MLC concludes that the internal findings, particularly the torn hymen, are consistent with non-consensual physical interaction. The absence of external injuries or stains is scientifically explained by post-incident bathing and change of clothes. The medical report substantiates the victim’s account while maintaining objective, clinical observation standards.
33. So far as Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Examination is concerned, the vaginal and pharyngeal slides prepared during the MLC were submitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. Submission included proper sealing, labeling, and documentation, ensuring chain of custody from collection to laboratory examination. The objective was to detect the presence of seminal fluid or other biological material that could corroborate sexual assault allegations.
34. The FSL conducted microscopic and chemical analyses on the submitted slides. Methods included examination for spermatozoa using microscopy and identification of seminal fluid through chemical reagents. The analysis accounted for the victim’s age, prior bathing, and temporal proximity to the incident. All standard forensic protocols for handling biological evidence were followed.
35. No spermatozoa or seminal material was detected in the submitted samples. The laboratory report noted that this absence is scientifically consistent with the victim having bathed and changed clothing prior to examination. Importantly, the FSL report
14
does not negate the medical findings of torn hymen or the clinical assessment of non-consensual physical interaction.
36. The FSL findings support the MLC by confirming proper collection, preservation, and examination of biological samples. The absence of detectable seminal material does not conflict with the clinical evidence or the victim’s account. Together, the MLC and FSL reports provide scientifically validated evidence of sexual assault consistent with the victim’s statements.
37. Now coming to other corroborative evidence, CCTV footage, verified and secured by PW-1, shows the accused’s presence at the shop and courtyard, supporting the timeline of events. The statements of the father, mother, and neighbors align with the victim’s account. The victim’s initial silence due to fear and the delayed narration are explained by threats made by the accused and the minor age of the victim. No inconsistencies are present that materially affect the credibility of the victim or other witnesses.
38. The victim (PW-4) provided a consistent and detailed account of the incident. PW-1 and PW-8 corroborated her narration and explained the circumstances for delayed disclosure. PW-7 confirmed the accused’s presence at the scene, and neighbors independently observed the accused entering and leaving the premises. PW-2’s medical examination corroborates the assault. PW-15 validated the authenticity and seizure of CCTV evidence.
15
Collectively, these testimonies, along with documentary and circumstantial evidence, establish the accused’s involvement in committing house trespass and grievous assault on a minor. The evidence is credible, coherent, and leaves no reasonable doubt regarding the occurrence of the offense and the accused’s participation.
39. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:-
“22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other
16
supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.”
40. In the matter of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2018) 17 SCC 291 , in paras 14 and 20, it is observed as under:
“14. At the very outset, it has to be stated with authority that the Pocso Act is a gender legislation. This Act has been divided into various chapters and parts therein. Chapter II of the Act titled “Sexual Offences Against Children” is segregated into five parts. Part A of the said Chapter contains two sections, namely, Section 3 and Section 4. Section 3 defines the offence of
17
“Penetrative Sexual Assault” whereas Section 4 lays down the punishment for the said offence. Likewise, Part B of the said Chapter titled “Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault and Punishment therefor” contains two sections, namely, Section 5 and Section 6. The various subsections of Section 5 copiously deal with various situations, circumstances and categories of persons where the offence of penetrative sexual assault would take the character of the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Section 5(k), in particular, while laying emphasis on the mental stability of a child stipulates that where an offender commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, by taking advantage of the child's mental or physical disability, it shall amount to an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.”
“20. Speaking about the child, a three Judge Bench in M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N. (1996) 6 SCC 756 “1. … “child is the father of man”. To enable fathering of a valiant and vibrant man, the child must be groomed well in the formative years of his life. He must receive education, acquire knowledge of man and materials and blossom in such an atmosphere that on reaching age, he is found to be a man with a mission, a man who matters so far as the society is concerned.”
41. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.144 OF 2022), decided on 8.2.2022 has held as under:-
18
“10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects and to achieve what has been provided under Article 15 and 39 of the Constitution to protect children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, the POCSO Act, 2012 has been enacted. Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act. By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure.
Children are precious human resources of our country; they are the country’s future. The hope of tomorrow rests on them. But unfortunately, in our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position. There are different modes of her exploitation, including sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. In our view, exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and the society. Therefore, the children and more particularly the girl child deserve full protection and need greater care and protection whether in the urban or rural areas. As observed and held by this
19
Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745 , children need special care and protection and, in such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. In the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703 , it is observed by this Court that a minor who is subjected to sexual abuse needs to be protected even more than a major victim because a major victim being an adult may still be able to withstand the social ostracization and mental harassment meted out by society, but a minor victim will find it difficult to do so. Most crimes against minor victims are not even reported as very often, the perpetrator of the crime is a member of the family of the victim or a close friend. Therefore, the child needs extra protection. Therefore, no leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law.”
42. When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident. Instead, the emphasis is on allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version. In State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar (2004) 8 SCC 153 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:“
20
“21. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court on facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration, as understood in the context of an accomplice, would suffice.”
43. On these lines, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivasharanappa and Others v. State of Karnataka , (2013) 5 SCC 705 observed as follows:
“17. Thus, it is well settled in law that the court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record. Needless to say as a rule of prudence, the court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from other reliable evidence placed on record. The principles that apply for placing reliance on the solitary statement of the witness, namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack of corroboration, apply to a child witness who is competent and whose version is reliable.”
21
44. The Supreme court in the matter of State of UP v. Sonu
Kushwaha, (2023) 7 SCC 475 has held as under :
“12. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6,on its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option but to impose the minimum sentence as done by the Trial Court. When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence. However, we find no such provision in the POCSO Act. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent may have moved ahead in life after undergoing the sentence as modified by the High Court, there is no question of showing any leniency to him. Apart from the fact that the law provides for a minimum sentence, the crime committed by the respondent is very gruesome which calls for very stringent punishment. The impact of the obnoxious act on the mind of the victim/child will be lifelong. The impact is bound to adversely affect the healthy growth of the victim. There is no dispute that the age of the victim was less than twelve years at the time of the incident. Therefore, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court.”
22
45. Upon a careful and anxious consideration of the entire evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, and after appreciating the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and the respondent-State, this Court finds that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
46. The testimony of the victim (PW-04) is clear, cogent, consistent, and inspires confidence. Her evidence regarding unlawful entry by the accused, commission of acts of sexual nature, use of force, intimidation, and restraint from raising alarm has remained intact despite lengthy and searching cross-examination. No material contradiction or omission touching the core of the prosecution case has been brought on record.
47. On careful consideration of the entire evidence, it is clear that the accused, Shubham, unlawfully entered the residence of the minor victim and committed an offence of a sexual nature. The victim’s testimony (PW-4) is consistent, credible, and detailed, describing the sequence of events, her attempts to resist, and the threats made by the accused. Her account is corroborated by her father (PW-1), who viewed the CCTV footage showing the accused entering and fleeing the premises, and by other independent witnesses who observed the accused near the victim’s residence. The delay in reporting the incident is reasonably explained by the threats made and the fear experienced by the minor, and does not detract from the reliability of her statement.
23
48. The medical and forensic evidence, including the MLC report (Ex.P-10) and FSL analysis, further support the prosecution’s case. While certain physical traces were absent due to postincident bathing, the findings corroborate the victim’s account and establish physical contact consistent with her description. The CCTV recordings and eyewitness accounts provide clear circumstantial evidence of the accused’s conduct before, during, and after the incident, creating a coherent narrative of the events. The uncontroverted evidence collectively establishes the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and demonstrates the grievous nature of the offence.
49. In view of the totality of the evidence, no material evidence has been presented by the accused to rebut this presumption. Consequently, it is concluded that appellant/accused committed house trespass, sexually assaulted the minor victim under sixteen years of age, and intimidated her by threatening harm.
50. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .
51. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.
24
52. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Sd/- Sd/-
( Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix deserves acceptance and whether the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the age of the victim on the date of commission of the offence concerned was below 16 years of age?
Whether on the date and place of incident, the accused committed house-trespass and an offence of sexual nature against the minor victim?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of DelhiReferred¶39
Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (8) SCC 21 · Who else cites this
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors.Referred¶40
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 17 SCC 291 · Who else cites this
Nawabuddin v. State of UttarakhandRelied on¶41
Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.144 OF 2022)
State of Rajasthan v. Om PrakashReferred¶41
State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745 · Who else cites this
Nipun Saxena v. Union of IndiaReferred¶41
Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703 · Who else cites this
State of H.P. v. Shree Kant ShekarRelied on¶42
State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar (2004) 8 SCC 153 · Who else cites this
Shivasharanappa and Others v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶43
Shivasharanappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 · Who else cites this
State of UP v. Sonu KushwahaReferred¶44
State of UP v. Sonu Kushwaha, (2023) 7 SCC 475 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Shubham Mandavi
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
Ramesh Sinha
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
