Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 201 (CHH)

Sonaruram, S/o Muraram v. State of Chhattisgarh

2024-03-04

RAMESH SINHA, RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.12.2022, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (F.T.S.C.) (POCSO), Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) in POCSO Case No. 33/2020, by which the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 366, 376(3) & 376(2)( ढ ) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month (all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently). 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.07.2021, a written report was filed vide Ex.P/2 by the aunt (PW-2) of the victim to the effect that the appellant on the false promise of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her niece/victim (PW-1) and also took her to Tamil Nadu where she became pregnant and was having 06 months pregnancy and thereafter, instant report has been lodged. On the basis of said written complaint, First Information Report No. 03/2020 was registered against the accused/appellant under Section 376 of the IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act vide Ex.P/3 and the case was taken into consideration. 4. Investigating Officer went to the place and prepared the spot map vide Ex.P/11. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested in front of witnesses and prepared the arrest sheet vide Ex.P/9. Medical examination of victim was got done by Dr. Shivangi Singrol (PW-3) vide Ex.P/14, in which she has stated no injury has been seen on the private part of the victim. The appellant was also medically examined by Dr. Rupesh Rawte (PW-6). Medical examination of victim was got done by Dr. Shivangi Singrol (PW-3) vide Ex.P/14, in which she has stated no injury has been seen on the private part of the victim. The appellant was also medically examined by Dr. Rupesh Rawte (PW-6). After usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the learned Additional Session Judge (F.T.S.C.) (POCSO), Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.), who conducted the trial. 5. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 366, 376(3) & 376(2)( ढ ) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined following witnesses :- 1. PW-1 Victim A 2. PW-2 Victim’s Aunt D 3. PW-3 Dr. Shivangi Singrol, examined the victim 4. PW-4 Victim’s Mother B 5. PW-5 Hemlata Netam, Inspector 6. PW-6 Dr. Rupesh Rawte, examined the accused 7. PW-7 Smt. Sumitra Netam, Assistant Teacher 8. PW-8 Victim’s Grand Father E 9. PW-9 Rupendra Narayan, Inspector 10. PW-10 Victim’s Uncle F 11. PW-11 Damini Bhardwaj, Patwari 12. PW-12 Sanjay Kumar Ursa, Investigating Officer 7. Besides aforesaid ocular evidence, prosecution also exhibited following documents :- 1 Ex.P/1 Consent letter of the victim 2 Ex.P/2 Written Complaint 3 Ex.P/3 First Information Report 4 Ex.P/4 Statement of Reymati Vadde 5 Ex.P/4 Medico-legal Examination Report of Sexual Violence 6 Ex.P/5 Statement of victim’s mother 7 Ex.P/6 Application for medical examination of accused and medical examination report 8 Ex.P/7C Copy of Admission & Discharge Register 9 Ex.P/8A Statement of victim’s grand father 10 Ex.P/8 Property Seizure Memo 11 Ex.P/9 Supurdnama 12 Ex.P/9 Arrest/Court Surrender Memo 13 Ex.P/10 Statement of Dhaniram Vadde 14 Ex.P/11 Spot Map 15 Ex.P/12 Panchnama 16 Ex.P/13 Memo regarding appointing of female doctor 17 Ex.P/14 Application for medical examination of victim and medical report 18 Ex.P/15 Consent letter of victim’s mother 19 Ex.P/16 Crime Details Form 20 Ex.P/17 Memo to CWC regarding recording statement of victim 21 Ex.P/18 Memo regarding providing of Spot Map 22 Ex.P/19 Memo regarding providing of admission register 8. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document. 9. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document. 9. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who have committed aforesaid offence, convicted and sentenced him in the aforementioned manner, against which the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant. 10. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that as per case of the prosecution, victim was minor on the date of incident, but this fact has not been proved by adducing lawful evidence. In this regard, only Dakhil-Kharij register (Ex.P/7C) of the victim has been seized, which shows that date of birth of victim is 13.05.2006, but it has not been proved by any of the witnesses that, on what basis aforesaid date of birth was recorded in the school. It is further submitted that since prosecution has failed to prove by adducing cogent evidence that, on the date of incident, victim was minor, hence the finding recorded by learned trial Court in this regard is not sustainable. He further submitted that learned trial Court erred in reading MLC report and statement of Dr. Shivangi Singrol (PW-3) and has also failed to consider that there is nothing in medical report to show that forcible sexual intercourse was committed upon the victim. He further submitted that the age of the victim has not been proved, that at the time of incident whether she was a minor through School Register. The learned trial Court had not considered the whole evidence in its totality and only appreciated the evidence of victim (PW-1). 11. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the offences committed by the appellant were heinous in nature and thus, the trial court had rightly convicted him. He submitted that the trial Court had considered all the arguments made by the appellant and there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He submitted that the trial Court had considered all the arguments made by the appellant and there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the victim was minor and below 18 years of age at the time of incident which is proved by the school admission and discharge register Ex.P/7C which contains the date of birth of the victim as 13.05.2006. The evidence of the victim need not be required for any corroboration and on the sole testimony of the victim the conviction can be made. He also submits that the accused/appellant is already married and on the pretext of marriage he committed sexual intercourse with the victim and also took her to Tamil Nadu where the victim became pregnant and was having 06 months pregnancy. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the learned trial Court and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 13. In the instant case conviction of the accused/appellant is substantially based on the testimonies of the victim (PW-1), aunt of the victim (PW-2), mother of the victim (PW-4), grandfather of the victim (PW-8), uncle of the victim (PW-10), Dhakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/7C) and MLC report Ex.P/4. 14. As per case of the prosecution, the date of birth of the victim is 13.05.2006 on this basis on the date of incident from December, 2019 to 16.07.2020, the age of the victim was 13 years 06 months and 19 days. To substantiate this fact, prosecution has adduced Dhakhil Kharij Register of Primary School, Bangalpara, District Narayanpur (C.G.) (Ex.P/7C), which has been proved by the Assistant Teacher of the said school Smt. Sumitra Netam (PW-7). This witness has clearly deposed in his deposition that in the Dhakhil Kharij Register information with regard to victim has been noted in Admission No.4067 and she was admitted in Class-I on 02.07.2013. She has also stated that as per this Register, the date of birth of victim is 13.05.2006. This witness has clearly deposed in his deposition that in the Dhakhil Kharij Register information with regard to victim has been noted in Admission No.4067 and she was admitted in Class-I on 02.07.2013. She has also stated that as per this Register, the date of birth of victim is 13.05.2006. This witness has also submitted that all the information in Dakhil Kharij Register with regard to the victim was made by the former Headmaster late C.L. Shaha and she knows the signature of Headmaster Late C.L. Shaha. Although, she has admitted that in support of alleged date of birth of victim, no any document was filed. 15. The date of birth of the victim was recorded as 13.05.2006 in the Dhakhil Kharij Register prior to 10 year of the present incident on the basis of which victim was found to be aged about 13 years 06 months and 19 days on the date of incident. The appellant did not adduced any evidence to discard aforesaid age of the victim. 16. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, we find that the learned trial Court has rightly held in paragraph 36 of the impugned judgment that on the date of incident the victim was child i.e. below the age of 18 years. 17. So far as with regard to allegation of rape committed by the appellant with the victim is concerned, PW-1, who is victim of the case, in her examination-in-chief has stated that she know and recognize the accused Sonaruram present in the Court. Sonaruram lived in Narayanpur, last year she went to Tamil Nadu with her friend for work. There she used to work in a wire company, accused Sonaruram also worked there. While working, she became friends with the accused and started falling in love with the accused. They both lived in the same room in Tamil Nadu. They both slept together and had physical relations like husband and wife. They both used to have physical relations almost every day. She was there with the accused for about six months and she became pregnant due to having physical relations with the accused. After working for six months, she came to her village with the accused. When she came back, she was six months pregnant and her stomach had grown. They both used to have physical relations almost every day. She was there with the accused for about six months and she became pregnant due to having physical relations with the accused. After working for six months, she came to her village with the accused. When she came back, she was six months pregnant and her stomach had grown. After coming home, she told her mother about having physical relations with the accused and being pregnant, after which her mother went to the Police Station and filed a report. Later she came to know that the accused Sonaruram was already married. The accused did not tell her about being married and establish physical relations on the pretext of marriage, due to which she became pregnant. For this reason, a report was written against the accused. 18. PW-2, victim’s aunt D, has stated that the victim is her niece. The victim had gone to work somewhere without informing anyone in the house. Six-seven months after the victim's departure, the Police personnel of Farasgaon Police Station came to our house taking the victim with them and called her to the Police Station. When the Police took her to the Police Station, Sonaruram was not present there. The Police personnel had told her that the victim was pregnant, then she questioned the victim about the pregnancy, but the victim did not tell her anything. Then the Police personnel told her that if they cannot marry her now then they will report. Then she lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/2) at Farasgaon Police Station and on the basis of her written complaint, a FIR (Ex.P/3) was lodged at Farasgaon Police Station. 19. PW-4, victim’s mother D, in her examination-in-chief has stated that the victim is her daughter. The victim had gone to Tamil Nadu to work without telling her. The victim came back home after four months, the victim did not tell her anything after coming back home. When the victim returned, the victim was pregnant. When she asked the victim about her pregnancy, she told her that she was pregnant by the accused Sonaruram. Apart from this she have no further information. 20. PW-8, victim’s grandfather E, in his examination-in-chief has stated that he do not recognize the accused Sonruram, the victim is his granddaughter. When the victim returned, the victim was pregnant. When she asked the victim about her pregnancy, she told her that she was pregnant by the accused Sonaruram. Apart from this she have no further information. 20. PW-8, victim’s grandfather E, in his examination-in-chief has stated that he do not recognize the accused Sonruram, the victim is his granddaughter. About 2 years ago, his granddaughter the victim had gone somewhere to work as a laborer, from where the victim returned home after a long time, then he interrogated the victim, and the victim did not tell him anything. In his cross-examination, he stated that it is correct to say that her granddaughter the victim used to go out with many boys and girls to do labor work. It is also correct to say that the victim did not tell him anything regarding the incident and the victim did not tell him from whose side she had become pregnant. 21. PW-10, victim’s uncle F, in his examination-in-chief has stated that he do not know the accused Sonaruram, the victim is my niece. The victim's family told him after the incident that the victim had become pregnant from a boy. Apart from this he do not know anything else. The Police did not interrogate him. In his cross-examination, he stated that it is is correct to say that no one had told from whose side the victim had become pregnant. It is true to say that no one even told him whether the victim was pregnant or not. 22. Dr. Shivangi Singrol (PW-3), the medical officer who has examined the victim, has deposed that on 21.07.2020 at 11.00 a.m. in the morning, the victim was brought before her for examination by Bharati Uike No. 540, Lady Constable of Police Station Farasgaon. During the examination, the victim told her that she was gone to Tamil Nadu to work with the accused. While working, they became friends and started living together and a physical relationship was established between them. Due to which she became pregnant and currently she is six months pregnant. She also stated as per MLC report (Ex.P/4) on general examination, the victim is conscious oriented, mental health normal, stable, no signs of struggle seen on her body and her genital examination gave evidence of vulva vagina normal, hymen old torn and no injury seen on her private part. She also stated as per MLC report (Ex.P/4) on general examination, the victim is conscious oriented, mental health normal, stable, no signs of struggle seen on her body and her genital examination gave evidence of vulva vagina normal, hymen old torn and no injury seen on her private part. She has given opinion after examination that no definite opinion can be given as there are no signs of forceful recent intercourse signs of immediate forced intercourse. In her cross-examination, she stated that the genitals of the victim were fully developed. The victim’s hymen old torn and had become completely healthy. She did not advise the victim to undergo X-ray to determine her age and did not sent her to a radiologist. The witness herself says that the victim was pregnant at the time of the test and X-ray is not done during pregnancy, hence she did not advise. It is correct to say that age can be determined by taking X-ray. 23. Sanjay Kumar Ursa (PW-12) was posted as Station-in-Charge in Farasgaon Police Station, District Narayanpur from date 04.09.2018 to date 29.07.2020. On 16.07.2020, after a written complaint (Ex.P/2) made by the complainant that accused Sonaruram Dugga had made physical relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage due to which she became six months pregnant, on the basis of written complaint (Ex.P/2), the FIR (Ex.P/3) was filed against the accused under Crime No. 3/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. On the same date, the statement of the complainant was recorded as per her description and on the same date, a letter (Ex.P/13) was written to Civil Surgeon Hospital, Narayanpur regarding appointing a female doctor to examine the victim. On the same date, for the physical examination of the victim, application for medical examination of the victim (Ex.P/14) was written to the District Hospital Narayanpur and on the same day, for getting for getting the physical examination of the victim done, consent form (Ex.P/1) and (Ex.P/2) were prepared after taking the consent of the victim and the mother of the victim. On 18.07.2020, as per the instructions of the victim's sister-in-law, Crime Details Form (Ex.P/16) was prepared and thereafter, on the same date, the statements of the victim's mother, the victim's grandfather and the victim's uncle were recorded as per their narration. On 18.07.2020, as per the instructions of the victim's sister-in-law, Crime Details Form (Ex.P/16) was prepared and thereafter, on the same date, the statements of the victim's mother, the victim's grandfather and the victim's uncle were recorded as per their narration. On 18.07.2020, memo to Child Welfare Committee regarding recording statement of victim (Ex.P/17) was written. On 20.07.2020, memo regarding providing Spot Map (Ex.P/18) was written to the Tehsildar, Narayanpur. On 21.07.2020, Sanjay Kumar Ursa had written a letter as Ex.P/19 to the head teacher of the victim's school regarding providing documents regarding her date of birth. On 22.07.2020, when teacher Sumitra Netam (PW-7) presented an attested copy of the victim's admission-dismissal register, in front of the witnesses, seizure sheet Ex.P/8 was prepared. The attested copy of the filed/discarded register was obtained and the original was returned. 24. Dr. Rupesh Rawte (PW-6), who has examined the accused, had stated that on general examination he found that the accused was normal and his mental condition was also normal. His secondary sexual characteristics were fully developed. Cremastic reflex was present, there was no injury on his body and smegma was absent. According to his opinion, the accused was capable to commit sexual intercourse. The report given him is Ex.P/6. 25. Hemlata Netam (PW-5), was posted as Inspector in Narayanpur Police Station since January 2017. During her posting, on 16.07.2020, the victim was presented before her for recording the statement on the instruction of Station-in-Charge of Farasgaon Police Station in Crime No.3/20 under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, then she recorded the statement of the victim as per her description. In her cross-examination, she stated that it is correct that written order from the Superintendent of Police was not received to take the statement of the victim. The witness himself says that a verbal order was received. It is correct to say that when she presented the victim at Narayanpur Police Station, she had recorded her statement. It is wrong to say that she had recorded the victim's statement from her mind without interrogating the victim. 26. In view of above discussion, we also affirm finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant is the perpetrator of instant crime. 27. It is wrong to say that she had recorded the victim's statement from her mind without interrogating the victim. 26. In view of above discussion, we also affirm finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant is the perpetrator of instant crime. 27. During course of submission learned defence counsel draw our attention towards some contradictions and omissions in depositions of the prosecution witnesses, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 , while considering the reliability of the statement of the victim has held that “minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault was enough for conviction and does not require corroboration unless there were compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The Court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience”. The same was reiterated in Pappu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 176. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant during course of argument also raised objection that except victim there is no credible evidence in support of her statement even deposition of her mother and aunt is based on information given by victim and medical evidence also does not corroborate, therefore, only on the basis of deposition of victim holding guilty to the appellant by the learned trial Court is not sustainable. 29. We are not inclined with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant as it is settled proposition of law that conviction of the accused could be based on sole testimony, without corroboration and it has also been held that the sole testimony of victim should not be doubted by the court merely based on assumptions and surmises. 30. In the case of Ganesan vs. State, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the victim is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the series of judgments on conviction on the sole evidence of the victim. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the series of judgments on conviction on the sole evidence of the victim. In paragraphs 10.1 to 10.3, it was observed and held as under: “10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, in Vijay [Vijay vs. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191 ], it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as under: (SCC pp. 195-98) “9. In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 550 this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 559, para 16) ‘16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.’ 10. In State of U.P. vs. Pappu, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 594 this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 597, para 12) ‘12. 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 upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of 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. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of 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 do.’ 11. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 ], this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the court is duty-bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 394- 96 & 403, paras 8 & 21) ‘8. …The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. …The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. …The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self- respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. …Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. …Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. … *** 21. …The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.’ 12. In State of Orissa vs. Thakara Besra, reported in (2002) 9 SCC 86 , this Court held that rape is not mere physical assault, rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non- examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non- examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. In State of H.P. vs. Raghubir Singh, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 622 , this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan vs. State of M.P., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 9 placing reliance on an earlier judgment in Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1952 SC 54 . 14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.” 10.2. In Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130 ], it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 10.3. Who can be said to be a “sterling witness”, has been dealt with and considered by this Court in Rai Sandeep vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 . In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) “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. In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) “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 every one of other 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 such similar tests to be applied, can it 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. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it 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.” 31. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Pankaj Chaudhary, reported in (2019) 11 SCC 575 , it was observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It was further observed and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. In paragraph 29, it was observed and held as under: “29. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. [Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra [Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 283 ]. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the “probabilities factor” does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. [State of Rajasthan vs. N.K., reported in (2000) 5 SCC 30 ].” 32. [State of Rajasthan vs. N.K., reported in (2000) 5 SCC 30 ].” 32. In the case of Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34 , the Supreme Court observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. In paragraphs 6 and 7, it was observed and held as under: “6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults. [See State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 ] (SCC p. 403, para 21).] 7. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. (See Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of Assam, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 635 ].” 33. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidences of the victim (PW-1), statement of her aunt (PW- 2), statement of her mother (PW-4), Dhakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/7C), statement of Dr. Shivangi Singrol (PW-3), the medical officer who has examined the victim and MLC report Ex.P/4, it is quite clear from the documentary and oral evidence presented by the prosecution on record and its analysis, it is proved that the accused, after luring the victim for marriage, forced her to have sexual intercourse and established physical relations several times with the victim. As a result of which the victim became pregnant and gave birth to a child and the prosecution has also been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of the incident the victim was minor i.e. below the age of 18 years and the accused on the said incident, date, time and place, committed penetrative sexual assault by repeatedly having sexual intercourse with the minor victim. Thus, 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 sentenced as awarded by the trial court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 34. The appellant is stated to be in jail since 09.08.2020 being the date of arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial court. 35. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.