Chattisgarh High Court
Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi Sarwa vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:18214
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 1513 of 2019
Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi Sarwa S/o Santram Sarwa Aged About 24 Years
R/o Village - Jaamsarar Kala, P.S. - Dongargaon , District - Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Centre, Dongargaon District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
___________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, P.L.
___________________________________________________________
Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Judgment on Board
22/04/2025
1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.’)
questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 05.10.2019 (wrongly mentioned as 05.10.2018 in the
Digitally
signed by
VASANT
VASANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.30
10:46:36
+0530
2impugned judgment) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
(F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (POCSO
Act) No.19/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under :-
Conviction Sentence In Default
Under Section 6 R.I. for 10 years and In default of
of the Protection fine amount of payment of
of Children from Rs.5,000/- fine amount
Sexual Offences further S.I. for
Act, 2012 06 months
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.03.2018, father of the
victim (PW-1) lodged an FIR (Ex.P-2) at Police Station
Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon against the accused/appellant
alleging therein that, the prosecutrix used to attend computer
training class in Rajnandgaon, where the appellant also used to
work there. After some time period, the parents of the prosecutrix,
noticed some change in the behavior of the prosecutrix, where she
used to stay moony and stilly, when they asked her the reason, she
narrated the whole incident, that the appellant committed sexual
assault on her in the year 2016. The accused came to the victim’s
house in June, 2016. There was no one at the victim’s house that
day. The accused raped the victim and had physical relations with
her against her will. When the victim said that she would tell this
to her parents, the accused threatened that he had made her photos
3and videos and would defame her family by viral the same. The
victim got scared and did not narrate the incident to anyone. The
accused, threatening to show the videos and photos to other
people, raped the victim in July, 2017 and January, 2018 in a
lodge located at the bus stand of Rajnandgaon and a lodge in
Dongargarh. On the basis of said report, offence under Sections
376, 506 of IPC and under Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (hereinafter referred to as the
“POCSO”) Act was inscribed against the appellant in Crime No.
61/2018.
3. During the investigation of the crime, on 15.03.2018, after the
consent of the victim’s father and mother, the victim was
medically examined at the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. The
medical examination was conducted by Dr. Ekta Daniel (PW-13)
and the victim was found to be pregnant. A sonography test was
also conducted in this regard which confirmed the pregnancy of
the victim and the victim was found to be six weeks and five days
pregnant. The said examination report is Exhibit P.35, P.36, P.37,
P.38 and P.39, P.39A.
4. On 16.03.2018, the Investigating Officer- Inspector Ashwani
Rathore (PW-16), on the identification of the victim’s father,
reached the place of incident. A spot map was prepared Exhibit P-
4 in which the victim’s house is shown as the place of incident. A
4
site map of the place of incident has also been prepared by Patwari
Jiteshwari Sahu (PW-8) which is the victim’s house. On the
production of the victim’s father, the victim’s Aadhar card and
high school certificate were seized by the Investigating Officer-
Inspector Ashwani Rathore on 16.03.2018 as Exhibit P-5. In
relation to the age of the victim, the victim’s school admission
register was seized from Saraswati Shishu Mandir on the
production of witness Govind Ram Patel; the seizure is Exhibit
P.11. The witness got the original register back and obtained the
surrender letter and handed over the verified copy to the
Investigating Officer. The certified copy of the admission register
Exhibit P-12C is attached. As per the Dakhil Kharij register, high
school mark sheet and Aadhar card, the date of birth of the victim
is 20.10.2001 and on the date of incident, the victim had not
attained the majority.
5. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was
recorded by the Investigating Officer before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, which is Exhibit P-25. The
statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. were recorded by the Investigating Officer. The vaginal
slide, underwear etc. of the victim seized in the case were sent to
the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination. The
receipt for depositing the material is Exhibit P-30 and the
5
examination report is Exhibit P-31. In the examination report,
human sperm was not found in the vaginal slide prepared from the
vagina of the victim.
6. During investigation, the accused’s memorandum statement was
recorded under Exhibit P-9 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
and his mobile was seized and it was also sent to the Assistant
Inspector General of Police (Technical Services) for investigation,
but the prosecution could not submit any report as the mobile was
locked.
7. Charges were framed against accused Ravindra Kumar alias Ravi
Sarva under Sections 376 (2), 506 Part-2 IPC and Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, 2012. On reading out the charges, the accused denied
the charges and demanded trial. In the trial under Section 313
Criminal Procedure Code, the accused pleaded innocence and
stated that he used to stop the victim from going out with other
people and took the defence of being falsely implicated to hide the
victim’s illegitimate pregnancy and to save social prestige.
8. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as
many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 47 documents (Exhibits P-1
to P-47).
9. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral
and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned
6
judgment dated 05.10.2019 convicted and sentenced the appellant
in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this
judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the
CrPC has been preferred by him calling in question the impugned
judgment.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant
without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record
against the appellant. He further contended that the learned Court
below erred in the eye of law while convicting the appellant as
there is no seizure regarding the age certificate of the prosecutrix
have been made, even the parents of the prosecutrix in their
deposition have stated that no specific document was submitted
while admitting the prosecutrix in her school, which makes the
prosecution story corroborated. He further contended that the
learned Court below made fallacy error while passing order as the
mother of prosecutrix (P.W.-07) in her deposition has distinctly
broached that, the prosecutrix used to talk to the appellant on
phone, and just to hide the whole incident, she also didn’t
confiscated her mobile phone before the police authority. He
further contended that the medical examiner (P.W.-13)- Dr. Ekta
Daniel has specifically stated in her cross-examination that, there
were no physical marks and sexual assault present on the body of
7
the prosecutrix, which makes it clear that Section 6 of the POCSO
Act doesn’t attract in this case. It is therefore prayed that may
kindly be set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated
05/10/2019 (Annexure A-1) and acquit the appellant in the above
mentioned charges.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
State/respondent contended that the appellant has committed a
heinous crime of rape against a minor girl aged about 14 years 07
months. He further contended that the judgment of conviction and
sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper
warranting no interference.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
13. The first question for consideration before this Court would be,
whether the trial Court is rightly held that on the date of incident,
the victim was minor below the age of 18 years ?
14. When a person is charged for the offence punishable under the
POCSO Act, or for rape punishable in the Indian Penal Code, the
age of the victim is significant and essential ingredients to prove
such charge and the gravity of the offence gets changed when the
child is below 18 years, 12 years and more than 12 years. Section
8
2(d) of the POCSO Act defines the “child” which means any person
below the age of eighteen years.
15. Father of the prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in his statement that at
the time of incident, the victim was aged about 15-16 years. This
witness has stated in his cross-examination (Para-9) that the
victim’s date of birth was registered by his mother-in-law now who
is dead and he has not registered the date of birth of the victim in
the kotwar register.
16. Govind Ram Patel (PW-3), Headmaster of the Sarswati Shishu
Mandir, Kirgi PS Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, appeared in
the Court and produced the original dakhil kharij register of Class
One, in which the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as
20.10.2001.
17. Mother of the victim (PW-7) has stated in her statement that at the
time of incident, age of the victim was about 16 years. Prosecutrix
(PW-11) has stated in her statement that her date of birth is
20.10.2001 and at the time of incident, she was aged about 15
years.
18. In the present case, the prosecution has presented a certified copy
of the dakhil kharij register (Ex.P-12) of Class-1 st and Mark-sheet
of the High School, Chhattisgarh Board (Ex.P-14C), in which the
date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 20.10.2001. Apart from
9
this, a photo-copy of the victim’s Adhar card has been
presented, in which her date of birth is also mentioned the same,
i.e., 20.10.2001. With regard to confirmation of age of the victim,
X-ray was conducted in the Government Medical College &
Hospital, Rajnandgaon. According to the Radiology report (Ex.P-
41), age of the victim was 16-17 years at the time of incident.
19. The defence has not presented any oral or documentary evidence to
refuse the said date of birth, therefore, there is no reason to
disbelieve the date of birth of the victim, as 20.10.2001, hence, the
trial Court has rightly held that the date of birth of the victim is
20.10.2001 and on the date of incident, she was minor and her age
was 14 years 07 months.
20. The next question for consideration before us is whether the
appellant has committed rape on minor victim?
21. In this regard, the statement of the the victim (PW-11) is most
important. She stated in her statement that it was in June, 2016 that
the accused Ravindra came to her house, at that time she was alone
at home and the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.
When she asked to tell her parents about this, the accused
threatened her and said that he has made her photo and video and if
she tell her parents about this, he will show her photo and video to
everyone. After that in July 2017, accused Ravindra took her from
her house on his scooty to a lodge in Rajnandgaon, where he
10
forcefully had sex with her. After that in January 2018, the accused
took her to a lodge in Dongargarh and in February 2018 to a lodge
in Rajnandgaon and forcefully had sex with her. Since then her
health was not good. Seeing her parents and aunt asked her why she
was not well. Then she told them that the accused Ravindra had
forced himself on her and threatened her not to tell anyone that if
she tell anyone he will show her photos and videos to everyone.
22. Father of the victim (PW-1) has stated that the victim was always
troubled, so they questioned her. During the interrogation his wife
& sister-in-law were present and she told them that there is a boy
named Ravindra alias Ravi Sarva (accused) who is harassing her.
Daman Sahu has a computer centre where Ravindra alias Ravi
Sarva works and he raped her. The victim told him that Ravindra
raped her in June 2016 and made a video of her and will defame
her by showing it to other people in the society. Saying that he will
defame her like this, he raped his daughter two to three times.
23. In his cross-examination (Para-19), this witness has stated that he
did not go with his daughter to the Primary Health Center,
Dongargaon and Rajnandgaon Hospital. His wife and sister-in-law
had accompanied the victim during the medical examination. That
day at 07-08 pm, victim, his wife and his sister-in-law returned to
his residence in village Gunnagari Navagaon. They had told him
that my daughter’s X-ray and sonography tests had been done.
11
24. Aniket Meshram (PW-5), who runs a business of hotel stated in his
statement that entry in the hotel’s register dated 01.01.2018 in Saral
No. 3226, room No. 102, Accused- Ravindra father Santram Sahu
age 25 years, victim’s room No.114, in which arrival Dongargaon,
departure place Dongargaon Date 01.01.2018 time 01:30 PM,
departure 01.01.2018 time 04:10 PM was mentioned, signature of
accused & victim, fare Rs. 500/-, payment Rs. 500/-, check out is
written. Original register is Exhibit P.19, entry in the register is
made by the passenger who comes. The script of receiving the
amount is of Laxmikant. Aadhaar card number 977278708690 and
another Aadhaar card number 55604741XXXX (victim’s Aadhar
Card number) are entered in the register.
25. Dr. Ekta Denial (PW-13), who had medically examined the victim
on 15.03.2018 at about 6.40 pm, has stated that the victim was
brought before her for examination by lady Constable Khemen
Kore No.474, Police Station Dongargaon, Rajnandgaon. The victim
came alone with the lady Constable, none of her family members
came with her. Consent was taken from the victim for examination.
During the examination, she found the following :-
“A- Menstrual history- LMP 15.01.2018 Regular 04 to
05 days. She started having menstruation at the age of
12 years.
B- Secondary sexual characteristics – Both breasts
12were developed and there were axillary and pubic hair.
C- Age estimation – Advised for X-ray to determine
her age.
D- General Examination- There was no sign of any
external injury on the body. Height was about 05 feet
and weight was 50 kg. She had a normal build. Pulse
was 80 per minute, CVS, R.S., P.A.C.N.S., N.A.D was
normal.
E- Genital Examination- There were no signs of any
external injury. There were no signs of any injury on
labia, majora, minora. Vulva vagina, perineum were
normal. 04 vaginal slides were made and sent for
chemical examination. Hymen- Old ruptured.
F- Investigation advice HB blood group, urine test,
sonography, UPT were advised.
During the examination she did not find any signs
of immediate forceful intercourse. The examination
report is Exhibit P-35.”
26. On the advise of the Dr. Ekta Denial (PW-13), the victim was
subjected to Pathological and Sonography test and from perusal of
the Ex.P-36, it shows that the pregnancy report of the victim was
positive and Sonography report Ex.P-39 dated 16.03.2018 shows
13
that she was carrying 06 weeks 05 days pregnancy.
27. Section 6 of the POCSO Act reads as under :-
“6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual
assault.– (1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative
sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for
life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder
of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to
fine, or with death.
(2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just
and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the
medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.”
28. In the case in hand, the victim was minor below the age of 18 years
on the date of incident, which has been proved by the dakhil kharij
register (Ex.P-12) & Mark-sheet of Class 10 th (Ex.P-14C) where
her date of birth has been mentioned as 20.10.2001 and the date of
incident is June, 2016 and as such, she was aged 14 years 07
months. According to the Radiology report (Ex.P-41), age of the
victim was 16-17 years, at the time of incident.
29. The appellant has also not stated anything concrete in his defence
except that he does not know and that he has been falsely
14
implicated. In my opinion, the above chain of circumstances is
complete and leads only to one conclusion that it was the
accused/appellant who has committed the aforesaid crime. The
view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author
of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on
record and I am of the opinion that in the present case, the only
view possible was the one taken by the trial Court. Since the victim
was below the age of 18 years on the date of incident, hence,
offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is fully proved against
the appellant.
30. Since the commission of offence under Section 6 of the POCSO
Act has been duly proved, the learned trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 6 of the
POCSO Act. No leniency can be shown towards the appellant as he
has sexually assaulted the victim aged below 18 years of age. The
conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court against the
appellant are hereby affirmed/maintained.
31. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is
hereby dismissed.
32. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the
sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned
judgment and order dated 05.10.2019 (Annexure A-1).
15
33. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be
transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary
information and action, if any.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant
[ad_1]
Source link