Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 20Th May vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 August, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
2025:HHC:28531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Criminal Appeal No. : 137 of 2022
Reserved on : 20th May, 2025
.
Decided on : 19th August, 2025
Nagender Singh @ Nagu ......Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent
Coram:
:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellant
r Mr. B. Nandan Vashishta,
Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Virender Singh, Judge
Appellant Nagender Singh @ Nagi has preferred the
present appeal, under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure
Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC‘), against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 28.04.2022, passed by
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Special Court under POCSO Act), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.
(hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), in Sessions Case No.34
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
2
2025:HHC:28531
N/VII/2020/2018, titled as Nagender Singh @ Nagu versus
State of Himachal Pradesh.
.
2. By way of the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has
convicted the appellant, for the offences punishable, under
Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
(hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) and Section 506 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC‘) and
sentenced him as under:
Sections Imprisonment Fine In default of
payment of fine
4 of POCSO Act Simple Rs.10,000/ Simple
imprisonment imprisonment
for a period of for two months.
seven years
504 of the IPC Simple Rs.2,000/ Simple
imprisonment imprisonment
for a period of for one month.
two years
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the
present lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as
were referred to, by the learned trial Court.
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
3
2025:HHC:28531
3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal,
before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be
.
summed up, as under:
3.1. The Police of Police Station, Nurpur, has filed the
report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, against the accused, on the
allegations that the child victim, along with his father, appeared
before the police and moved a complaint, disclosing therein,
that he is resident of the address as mentioned in the complaint
and aged about 16½ years.
3.2. According to the complainant, on 11.07.2017, at
about 4.00 p.m., he had taken his herd for grazing towards
Gharat forest. After sometime, accused also came there for
grazing his herd. His buck came in the herd of child victim.
Accused had inquired about the same, upon which, the child
victim replied in affirmative.
3.3. Thereafter, accused also sat with him and started
doing wrong activities. Initially, the child victim thought that he
was joking, but, later on, he allegedly tied his both hands and
committed sodomy with him and also threatened him not to
disclose this incident to anyone. This act was done by the
accused at about 6.30 p.m.
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
4
2025:HHC:28531
3.4. Thereafter, the accused had gone to his home. The
child victim with great difficulty get himself free and came back,
.
along with his herd and disclosed the whole facts to his mother.
His mother telephonically informed the father of the child victim
and who went to the house of accused and narrated the incident
to his father, who had started abusing him and threatened to
kill them.
3.5. Thereafter, the child victim has reported the matter
by moving the complaint, upon which, the police registered the
FIR, and the criminal machinery swung into motion.
4. The child victim was medicolegally examined at Civil
Hospital. Thereafter, spot map was prepared, photographs were
clicked and videography was done. The child victim has
produced the ‘Parna’, which was also taken into possession.
5. Accused was arrested on 12.07.2017, at about 7.00
p.m. He was also medicolegally examined and the physical
evidence, so collected by the doctors, upon examination of
accused, as well as, the child victim, was sent to RFSL
Dharamshala, for examination.
6. Statement of child victim, under Section 164 Cr.PC,
was got recorded, by producing him before the Court of learned
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
5
2025:HHC:28531
ACJM, Nurpur, on 18.07.2017. As per the documents, the date
of birth of the child victim was found to be 21.11.2001.
.
7. After completion of the investigation, the police filed
the report under Section 173(2) Cr. PC, against the accused
before the competent Court of law (learned Sessions Judge,
Dharamshala), from where, the same was assigned to the
learned trial Court, upon which, the learned trial Court has
taken cognizance.
8. On the basis of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C,
the learned trial Court found a primafacie case against the
accused person, for the commission of offences, punishable
under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Section 506 of the IPC,
as such, he has been chargesheeted accordingly, vide order
dated 22.03.2019.
9. When the charges, so framed, were put to the
accused person, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. As such, prosecution has been directed to adduce
evidence, to substantiate the charges framed against the
accused. Consequently, the prosecution has examined, as
many as, 15 witnesses.
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
6
2025:HHC:28531
10. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the
entire incriminating evidence, appearing against the accused,
.
was put to him, in his statement, recorded under Section 313
Cr.PC. The accused has denied the entire prosecution case and
took the defence that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category
and the victim belongs to Rajput caste. His father used to ask
me not to come to Gharat Forest to graze goat, though, Gharat
Forest belonged to all. It is his further defence that he had not
done anything wrong with the child victim. In order to
substantiate his defence, he has examined DW1 Pradeep
Kumar.
11. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after hearing the
learned Special Public Prosecutor, as well as, learned defence
counsel, has convicted and sentenced the accused, as
aforementioned.
12. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been
preferred, before this Court, on the ground, that the learned
trial Court has wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused for
the offences, for which, he has been chargesheeted, as there is
no evidence to connect the accused with the crime.
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
7
2025:HHC:28531
13. Highly relying upon the statement of Dr. Richa
Mehrotra, it has been highlighted that no injury was seen
.
around anal orifice, only redness was seen around the anal
orifice, though no blood stains marks were seen. In addition to
this, the doctor has not noticed cut marks or fissure in the said
area. All these facts, have been highlighted by the accused to
demonstrate that the learned trial Court has not considered the
evidence of PW2, Dr. Richa Mehrotra, in the right perspective.
14. The findings have further been assailed on the
ground that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the
crossexamination of PW3 Susheel Kumar. Accused has also
prayed that the statement of PW5, is liable to be ignored, being
hearsay, as, she has not witnessed the crime in question.
15. The findings have further been assailed on the
ground that the independent witnesses have not supported the
case of the prosecution. Another fact, which has also been
highlighted is that the incident had taken place on 11.07.2017
and the matter was reported to the police on the next day i.e. on
12.07.2017.
16. Highlighting the fact that the child victim and the
accused belongs to two different castes and having dispute
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
8
2025:HHC:28531
regarding grazing right over Gharat Jungle, it is the case of the
accused that the case of prosecution is planted and preplanned,
.
in order to take revenge.
17. On the basis of the above grounds of appeal, Mr. B.
Nandan Vashishta, Advocate, appearing for the accused, has
prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, by setting aside
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and the
accused may kindly be acquitted.
18. The prayer, so made, by learned counsel appearing
for the appellantaccused, has been opposed by Mr. Tejasvi
Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, on the ground
that the evidence of the prosecution and defence has rightly
been considered by the learned trial Court along with the
deposition of the child victim, who, not only narrated the entire
case, so set up, by the prosecution, but, also withstood the
lengthy crossexamination.
19. According to learned Additional Advocate General,
the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in its right
perspective, the conclusion of which, has resulted into the
conviction of the accused. According to him, the well reasoned
judgment of conviction, does not require any interference by this
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
9
2025:HHC:28531
Court, in view of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, as the accused
could not rebut the presumption, which is against him, as, the
.
prosecution has proved its case, against the accused, beyond
any shadow of doubt.
20. In order to decide the present appeal, in an effective
manner, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to
discuss the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
21. PW1, is the child victim, who has deposed his date
of birth as 21.11.2001. He has also deposed that in the year
2017, he was studying in 10+1 Class and on 11.07.2017, at
about 4.00 p.m., he had gone to graze the goats at Gharat
Forest. After sometime, Nagender Singh @ Nagu also came
there along with his goats. His one buck intermingled in the
herd of child victim, upon which, accused had enquired from
him and the child victim has answered in affirmative.
Thereafter, the child victim lied on the platform.
22. This witness has also deposed that accused also
came beside him and sat on the said platform and started doing
wrong act. He tied his hands with parna and removed his
pajama. Accused also removed his pants and penetrated his
penis into his rectum. Thereafter, the accused threatened the
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
10
2025:HHC:28531
child victim that he would kill him, in case, he revealed the
incident to anyone. Thereafter, accused had gone to his home
.
along with his goats and the child victim also came back to his
house and narrated the incident to his mother, who further
informed his father on phone. His father reached home in the
evening and had gone to the house of accused and told
everything to the father of the accused, but, the father of the
accused threatened the father of the child victim with dire
consequences.
23. Thereafter, the child victim, along with his parents,
had visited Police Station, Nurpur and produced the complaint
Ex.PW1/A, upon which, the police registered the case and
police took him to C.H. Nurpur, for conducting his medicolegal
examination. After medicolegal examination, MLC was issued.
He has duly identify his signature over the MLC. The Medical
Officer has also taken into possession his Pajama, which he had
allegedly worn at the time of incident.
24. On 12.07.2017, Parna was also handed over to the
Police, which the accused had used to tie his hands. Thereafter,
the child victim was produced before the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nurpur, where his statement
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
11
2025:HHC:28531
under Section 164 Cr.PC, was recorded. He has duly identify
his signatures over the statement under Section 164, Cr.PC,
.
Ex.PW1/C. He has also identified the case property, which has
been shown to him in the Court i.e. Parna Ex.P1, Pajama
Ex.P2.
25. In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted
that he is Rajput by caste, whereas, accused belongs to
Scheduled Caste. Rajput caste was having their grazing rights
over the Gharat Forest. This witness has also admitted that he
had gone to attend school on 11.07.2017. He has also admitted
that the distance of Police Station, Nurpur from his house is
about 15 kilometers. The platform, where the crime was
committed by accused is about half kilometer from his house.
The complaint Ex.PW1/A was scribed by the police official. He
has admitted that during the whole proceedings before the
police, as well as, before the Court, he was accompanied by his
father. However, he has denied that the statement Ex.PW1/C,
is result of tutoring. This witness has also admitted that he had
sustained injuries due to penetration in his rectum by the
accused. Rest, he has denied all the suggestions, which were
put to him by the learned counsel for the accused, including the
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
12
2025:HHC:28531
very basis of the incident that accused had not sodomized with
him.
.
26. PW2 Dr. Richa Mehrotra, Medical Officer, PHC
Kakeera, has deposed that in the year 2016, she was posted as
Medical Officer at C.H. Nurpur. On 12.07.2017 at 1:00 a.m. on
application of the police Ex. PW2/A, he has conducted medico
legal examination of the child victim, who was brought to her for
medicolegal examination, by the police with the alleged history
of anal intercourse by some person, namely Nagu, on
11.07.2017 at around 6:30 pm. The child victim was oriented
and responding to verbal commands. On examination, the
following injuries were found on the person of the child victim:
1. on examination, no external injury was seen
over body. No bruise, abrasion, or eccymosis
over thighs, buttocks, chest, abdomen, supra
pubic area.
2. On examination, no injury was seen around
anal orifice, redness was seen around the anal
orifice, though no blood stains marks were seen
and the orifice was surrounded by hairs, which
were preserved. No cuts marks or fissure were
seen.
27. This witness has also deposed that swabs (two in
numbers) were taken from anal canal (distal end) and anal
orifice and were preserved and sealed. No cuts, bruise,
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
13
2025:HHC:28531
eccymosis, tears, fissures were seen on the area examined.
Slight redness was seen. She has also deposed that the child
.
victim showed no difficulty in walking and no pain was elicited
at the time of examination. She has also deposed that the
pajama worn by child victim was preserved for analysis of any
discharge or foreign body.
28. Apart from the above, swabs were taken from anal
orifice and distal end of anal canal, hair around the anal orifice
and Pajama worn at the time of assault, were also taken into
possession. She has also deposed that no other injury was
noticed by her over the body of the child victim. No bleeding, no
cuts, no fissures were seen around anal orifice and anal canal,
only redness was present. Final opinion was deferred till the
results of chemical analysis. She had issued MLC Ex.PW2/B,
which bears her signatures. She has further deposed that on
07.12.2017, on the basis of report from RFSL Dharamshala,
blood and semen were not detected in the anal swatis, hair
around the anal orifice and pajama of the child victim and has
already stated in MLC, no injury marks were found around the
anal orifice.
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
14
2025:HHC:28531
29. In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted
that the police moved an application, Ex.PW2/A, before her for
.
the examination of child victim, in which, the police had already
mentioned the contents of alleged history. She has also
admitted that the redness mentioned in MLC Ex.PW2/B could
be caused by itching, improper personal hygiene and fungal
infection. She has also admitted that if anal intercourse is done
by accused upon the child victim, both would sustain injuries
on their private parts and there has to be injury in the shape of
cuts, fissures and bleeding. She has also admitted that there is
no fissures, cuts and bleeding shown during the examination of
the child victim.
30. PW3 Susheel Kumar, has deposed that he was
called by the police at village Bardi, however, according to him,
the police had not taken into possession parna in his presence.
31. This witness has been declared hostile by the
learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Public Prosecutor has
been permitted to crossexamine him. According to the cross
examination of this witness, police took him to the spot at Syal
Ghat Jungle and the police had put the parna in a cloth parcel
which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Rest,
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
15
2025:HHC:28531
he has denied all the suggestions, which had been put to him by
the learned Public Prosecutor.
.
32. In the crossexamination by the learned defence
counsel, this witness has admitted that the police had shown
him the parna and told that the said parna was used by the
accused to tie the child victim. Rest, he has denied all the
suggestions put to him by the learned defence counsel.
33. PW4 Jeevan Lal deposed that he was associated in
the investigation by the police. In his presence, the police had
taken into possession a parna at Tiyala of a place Gharat jungle,
which was produced by the child victim. The said parna was
taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B, however, he has
denied the sealing process.
34. This witness has also been declared hostile by the
learned Public Prosecutor. However, in his crossexamination,
this witness has identified the Parna Ex.PA.
35. PW5 Smt. Kamlesh Kumari is mother of the child
victim. According to her, on 11.07.2017, her son, the child
victim, at about 7:00 p.m. when, returned back to home, after
grazing goats, disclosed to this witness that accused Nagender
Nagu tied his hands with parna and committed unnatural sex
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
16
2025:HHC:28531
(anal sex) with him. Consequently, this witness informed her
husband through telephone. When her husband came back, he
.
had gone to the house of the accused to inquire, in this regard,
then, the accused has abused her husband and also threatened
with dire consequences.
36. In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted
that in Gharat Jungle, every inhabitant of the village and nearby
villages could graze their cattle, like her son. She has admitted
that they are Rajput by caste, whereas, the accused belongs to
scheduled caste. The dispute, with regard to grazing rights has
also been denied by her. Learned counsel appearing for the
accused successfully confronted this witness, with regard to
improvements made by this witness about alleged abuses by the
accused to her husband, when he had gone to the house of the
accused to inquire the matter. This witness has also specifically
deposed about the date of birth of her children, including the
child victim.
37. PW6 Duni Chand, is father of the child victim, who
has deposed that on 11.07.2017, he had gone to Chakki Khadd
for bringing sand. At about 7.00 p.m., his wife (PW5)
telephonically requested him to come back to home. PW5
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
17
2025:HHC:28531
disclosed to him that accused had tied the hands of the child
victim and committed anal sex with the child victim, when the
.
child victim had gone to Gharat forest to graze goats. He has
also deposed that thereafter, he had gone to the house of the
accused to talk with the father of the accused, however, accused
with his father and brother has started the use of force with him
and also pelted stones on him. This witness had narrow
escaped from being hit by stones on his head. Thereafter, he
had talked with Susheel Kumar, who is husband of the Ward
Member, who has advised him to make the report to the police.
Thereafter, he, along with his wife, had gone to Police Station
Nurpur and lodged the FIR by moving complaint Ex.PW1/A,
which was signed by the child victim.
38. In the crossexamination, this witness, alike his wife
has also denied that in the Gharat forest only Rajputs had
grazing rights over the said forest. He has also denied that they
are having strained relations with the caste of the accused. The
distance of Police Station Nurpur is about 12 kilometer from his
home. He has also admitted that he and his wife were having
cell phones, at the relevant time. This witness has further
stated that the child victim has not sustained any injury in the
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
18
2025:HHC:28531
alleged occurrence. The child victim was medicolegally
examined. Rest, he has denied all the suggestions, which were
.
put to him by the learned defence counsel.
39. PW7 Kuldeep Chand, has produced the date of birth
certificate of child victim, which is Ex.PW7/A. As per the
record, the date of birth of the child victim is 21.11.2001.
40. PW8, Rajinder Parshad Soga, photographer has
clicked the photographs, which are Ex.PW8/A1 to Ex.PW8/A
6.
41. PW9 HHG Jarnail Singh, took the case property to
RFSL Dharamshala.
42. PW10 Inspector Sandeep Sharma, registered the
FIR and after completion of investigation, prepared the challan
and submitted the same in the competent Court of law.
43. PW11 SI Shiv Lal is the I.O. of the case and he has
deposed about the manner, in which he has conducted the
investigation. In the crossexamination, this witness has
admitted that the father of the child victim was associated
during the entire investigation. He has feigned his ignorance
about the fact that no evidence regarding sodomy was found
during medical examination.
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
19
2025:HHC:28531
44. PW12 HC Ravinder Singh was posted as MHC in
Police Station Nurpur. After receiving complaint Ex.PW1/A,
.
FIR was registered. Thereafter, the case property, which was
deposited with him, he has sent the same to RFSL
Dharamshala.
45. PW13 SI Nand Lal, has also conducted the partial
investigation in this case.
46.
PW14, Dr. Ajay Sehgal, Assistant Director, Biology
and Serology Division, RFSL NR Dharamshala, has proved the
report Ex.PW14/A. This witness has admitted that no semen
was detected on anal swabs, hair around anal orifice or pajama
of the victim, however, he has stated that he cannot say that the
offence was not committed with the victim.
47. PW15 Dr. Mukesh Bhardwaj, proved the MLC
Ex.PW15/A, which was conducted by Dr. Jitender Mahajan, on
12.07.2017.
48. The accused, in this case, has examined DW1
Pardeep Kumar, who has deposed that he is Ward Panch of
Gram Panchayat Loharpura Ward No.3. According to him, the
persons belonging to Rajput caste are having grazing rights in
the said forest and the Rajput society has passed the resolution
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
20
2025:HHC:28531
that the people of other castes cannot graze their cattle. Copy of
resolution is lying with Rajput society. He has also deposed
.
that the accused is from his Gram Panchayat and he belongs to
scheduled caste.
49. In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted
that he is not the member of the Rajput Society, nor having the
copy of the byelaws of the society. He has also admitted that
no fencing of the forest was made. He has further admitted that
the stray and pet animals used to graze in the Gharat forest.
Rest, he has denied all the suggestions, which were put to him
by the learned special public prosecutor.
50. In this case, criminal machinery was put into motion
by the child victim by making the complaint, Ex.PW1/A. In the
said complaint, he has categorically stated that accused
sodomized him, after tying both his hands. The said version, is
not only contained in the complaint Ex.PW1/A, but also, in his
statement, recorded, under Section 164 Cr.PC, in which, he has
used the word, rape like act.
51. When the child victim appeared in the witnessbox,
as PW1, he has categorically deposed about the said act of the
accused, by saying that the accused had penetrated his penis
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
21
2025:HHC:28531
into his rectum. Nothing could be elicited by the learned
defence counsel from the lengthy crossexamination of this
.
witness, from which, inference can be drawn that the deposition
made by the child victim is suffering from any infirmity. The
statement was recorded on 3.8.2019. Meaning thereby, the
child victim was about 18 years of age (17 years 9 months) and
he, at that time, was studying in B.A. First year. As such, the
child victim, being a young boy, might be understanding the
consequences of making such a deposition, in the Court, and he
cannot be expected to depose falsely against the accused,
regarding such allegations, which would attract humiliation in
the society.
52. Considering his consistent stand, right from making
the complaint Ex.PW1/A, to make the deposition in the Court,
after a gap of one year, this Court has no hesitation to hold that
the evidence of the complainant is confidence inspiring.
53. Moreover, it is highly improbable that merely on the
basis of the alleged dispute regarding grazing rights, between
two castes, would give an occasion to the child victim to lodge
false FIR, had the alleged offence been not committed the
accused.
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
22
2025:HHC:28531
54. Even otherwise, the tone and tenor of the cross
examination demonstrate that the incident has not been
.
disputed by the accused, as, it has been suggested that “it is
correct that I had sustained injuries due to penetration in my
rectum by accused”. By way of this suggestion, a credence has
been led to the version of the child victim. Mere admission on
the part of the child victim that the complaint, Ex.PW1/A was
scribed by the Police officials, in no way, diminishes the
evidentiary value of the statement of the child victim, in the
Court, as, he has not only deposed about the incident in clear
terms, but, also withstood the lengthy crossexamination.
55. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the accused qua the fact that the medical
evidence does not support the case of the child victim, are
concerned, the same are liable to be rejected, as, PW2, has
categorically deposed that although, no injury was seen around
anal orifice, but, redness was seen around the anal orifice,
though, no blood stain marks were seen and orifice was
surrounded by hairs. She has also deposed that no cut marks
or fissure were seen, but, the statement of the witness is to be
considered, as a whole, as, in the latter part of her statement,
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
23
2025:HHC:28531
she has deposed that redness was seen around anal orifice, as
observed in MLC, can be caused by slight penetration of penis
.
in anus.
56. This deposition of the expert has not even been
suggested to be incorrect. Whatsoever, the suggestions, which
were put, are with regard to the complete penetration, as, she
has deposed that in case, anal intercourse is done by accused
upon victim, both would sustain injuries on their private parts,
whereas, in the examinationinchief, she has stated that
redness can be caused by slight penetration of penis in anus.
57. The accused, in the present case, has been charge
sheeted, under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Penetrative sexual
assault, has been defined in Section 3 of the POCSO Act, which
is reproduced, as under:
3. Penetrative sexual assault.–A person is said to
commit “penetrative sexual assault” if–
(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the
vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes
the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of
the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the
urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do
so with him or any other person; or
(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so
as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
24
2025:HHC:28531or any part of body of the child or makes the child to
do so with him or any other person; or
(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus,
.
urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to
such person or any other person.
(self emphasis supplied)
58. If the statement of PW2, qua the fact that the
redness is seen around the anal orifice, as observed, can be
caused by slight penetration of penis in anus, is seen in the
light of the definition of penetrative sexual assault, the offence
committed by the accused stood proved, from the deposition of
the child victim, who has categorically stated that the accused
penetrated his penis into his rectum.
59. Learned counsel appearing for the accused has
argued that expert PW2, has stated that the redness can be
caused, as mentioned in Ex.PW2/E, by itching, improper
personal hygiene and fungal infection, but, no suggestion has
been put to PW1 that the redness, which was noticed by the
Medical Officer in the MLC, was due to itching, improper
personal hygiene and fungal infection. In the absence of
suggestion to the accused, merely putting the suggestion to the
expert PW2, the doctor, who has conducted medicolegal
examination of the child victim, is inconsequential.
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
25
2025:HHC:28531
60. So far as the alleged animosity on account of grazing
rights over the Gharat Forest is concerned, futile attempt has
.
been made by DW1, who has deposed that the Rajput society
has passed the resolution that people of the other castes cannot
graze their cattle in the said forest. However, neither any
documentary proof has been placed on record, nor, any
suggestion was put to the child victim, his mother and his
father regarding the alleged resolution of the Rajput society.
Absence of the documentary proof or suggestion, in no way,
helps the case of the accused.
61. The alleged documents i.e., resolution, could have
been summoned to prove or probabilize the defence that the
Rajput society has passed the resolution of preventing the other
castes to use the said forest to graze their pet animals.
62. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view
that the learned trial Court has rightly drawn the presumption
under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, as, the prosecution has
proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt.
63. So far as the arguments of the learned defence
counsel, qua the fact that the mother and father of the child
victim were not present on the spot, are concerned, no benefit
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
26
2025:HHC:28531
can be derived from the said fact, as, it is the case of the child
victim that the accused had committed anal sex with him, in the
.
forest, and thereafter, when, he came back to home, he had
narrated the entire incident to his mother, who, in turn, has
informed his father and requested him to come home. In the
normal course of events, he had gone to the house of the
accused and thereafter, the matter was reported to the police.
64. It is no longer res integra that the quality of the
evidence matters and not the quantity. When, the child victim
has deposed, in unequivocal terms, with regard to the incident,
which had taken place with him and withstood the lengthy
crossexamination, then, there is no occasion for this Court to
disagree with the findings, so recorded, by the learned trial
Court.
65. Merely, the persons, who were associated by the
Police to prove the recovery of Parna, when appeared in the
witnessbox, turned hostile, does not mean that the testimony
of the child victim is liable to be ignored. The testimony of the
child victim is confidence inspiring and nothing adverse could
be elicited from him in his crossexamination.
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS
27
2025:HHC:28531
66. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned,
the child victim and his parents are from tradition bound
.
conservative family and in normal course of events, the father of
the child victim had gone to the house of the accused, where,
the accused and his father scolded him. Thereafter, the FIR has
been lodged.
67. Even otherwise, the person from tradition bound
conservative family, thinks twice, before lodging FIRs, in such
type of matters, which would bring hatred and disrespect to the
child victim, as well as, his family, in the society.
68. No other point urged or argued, before this Court.
69. In view of the above discussion, no ground for
interference with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial
Court is made out and the same is upheld. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed.
Record be sent back.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
August 19, 2025 (ps)
::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:22:37 :::CIS