Bhagunta @ Parma vs State Of M.P.

1
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
th
ON THE 16 OF JULY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 426 of 2014
BHAGUNTA @ PARMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Jain – Advocate for appellant.
Shri C.P. Singh - Public Prosecutor for the State.
JUDGEMENT
Per : Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against
the judgment and sentence dated 05.02.2014 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri in SST No.25/2013 by which the appellant
has been convicted for offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and accordingly, he has
been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 4 of POCSO Act,
2012 and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months.
No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 376 of
IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

2
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that on
15.07.2013, the complainant lodged an FIR to the effect that one day prior to
i.e. on 14.07.2014, the complainant was preparing meals in her house. At that
time, her husband (appellant) came and enquired about the victim. When it was
replied by the complainant that the victim might have gone towards the
well/field, then the appellant went towards the well/field. After some time, the
victim came and she was limping and was crying. There was excessive
bleeding on her legs and thigh. On inquiry, she informed that she was sexually
assaulted by her father/appellant. When the complainant inspected the private
part of the victim, then she found that blood was oozing out. The incident was
narrated to the villagers. On account of excessive rains and flood, she could not
come to the police station to lodge the FIR. After the incident, appellant, who is
husband of the complainant and father of the victim, had run away from the
village. On this report, police registered FIR in Crime No.288/2013 for offence
under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3. After recording statements of the witnesses and getting the victim
medically examined and arresting the accused, the police filed a charge sheet
for offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The Trial
Court by order dated 29.11.2013 framed charges under Section 376 of IPC and
under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined the victim “A”
(PW-1), mother of the victim “B” (PW-2), brother of victim “C” (PW-3), Dr.
Brajesh Sharma (PW-4), mother of another minor victim, who was sexually
assaulted by the appellant on previous occasion “D”(PW-5), father of another
minor victim who was earlier sexually assaulted by the appellant “E” (PW-6),
Panku (PW-7), Sunil Shrivastava (PW-8), Babulal Parihar (PW-9), Dr. M.L.
Agrawal (PW-10), Kallu Ram (PW-11), Dr. Sandhya Gupta (PW-12). The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

3
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.
6. The Trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the evidence led by the parties convicted the appellant for offence under
Section 376 of IPC and under Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to
undergo the life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and in default,
imprisonment of rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under
Section 4 of POCSO Act. No separate sentence was awarded for offence under
Section 376 of IPC.
7. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the
Trial Court, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant that no FSL report with
regard to the blood of the victim “A” has been filed. It is further submitted that
minimum sentence for offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act is 10 years and
accordingly the life imprisonment may be reduced to the minimum sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
8. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the
State. It is submitted that the appellant is alleged to have committed rape on
his own minor daughter aged about 7 years. The appellant is a habitual
offender. Earlier also, he had committed rape on a minor girl in the year 2005
for which FIR in Crime No.418 of 2005 was registered under Section 376 of
IPC and appellant was sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of
seven years and fine of Rs.500/- Under these circumstances, it is submitted that
where the minor girls are not safe in their own homes and even the biological
father of the girl has sexually assaulted his own daughter, then appellant is not
entitled for any mercy or reduction in jail sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The victim “A” (PW-1) is a minor girl aged about 7 years. After
verifying as to whether she is able to understand the Court proceedings or not,
her evidence was recorded by the trial Court. In her examination-in-chief, she
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

4
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
had specifically stated that in the evening at about 4 PM, she had gone to her
well. At about 6 to 7 PM, her father came and took her to the earthen boundary
( esM+ ), where he removed her undergarments. Her father also removed his
clothes and committed bura kam with her. She further narrated the manner in
which bura kam was committed. She also raised an alarm but nobody was
there. Blood had started oozing out from her private part. After coming back to
her house, she narrated the incident to her mother and elder brother. Since it
was raining heavily, therefore, her mother went to the police station on the next
day. FIR was lodged by her mother. This witness also narrated the incident to
the police. She was medically examined in Shivpuri. She had also pointed out
the place to her mother, where she was sexually assaulted by her father. In
cross-examination, when a specific question was put by the counsel for the
appellant as to whether the appellant is present in the Court or not, then this
witness pointed out towards the appellant. She denied the suggestion that she is
giving a false statement at the instance of her mother. On her own, she stated
that she has narrated the incident correctly. She denied that she was not
sexually assaulted by her father. On her own, she narrated that the appellant
had committed rape after removing her undergarments. She denied that FIR
was lodged falsely at the behest of one Ballu Lodhi. She denied that Ballu
Lodhi has given Rs.10,000/- to her mother for lodging the false FIR against her
father/appellant. No other question was put to this witness in the cross
examination.
11. Mother of the victim “B” (PW-2) has also stated that about 6 to 7 PM
she was in her house and her husband came to her and enquired about the
victim “A”. When she informed the appellant that victim “A” had gone
towards well, then the appellant also went towards the field. After sometime,
the victim “A” came. She was crying and informed that she was sexually
assaulted by the appellant after removing her undergarments. She had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

5
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
inspected the private parts of the prosecutrix and found that blood was oozing
out. The incident was narrated by her to the villagers. Since it was raining
heavily, therefore, they could not go to lodge the FIR. On the next day the FIR
was lodged. The FIR (Ex.P/1) was read out to the witness who endorsed that
same FIR was lodged by her. She had also put her thumb impression on the
FIR (Ex.P/1). The victim “A” was taken to Shivpuri for medical examination.
Victim “A” had also pointed out to her the place where the incident took place.
The place of incident was narrated by this witness to the police. It was also
stated that about 6 to 7 years back, the appellant had also committed rape on
another minor girl and in that case the appellant was sentenced to undergo the
rigorous imprisonment of seven years. The appellant had also committed rape
on a woman who was the resident of Khurai.
12. This witness was cross-examined. She denied that about 10 years back,
her husband had deserted her. She further stated that she had stayed at her
parental home for 8 years. However, she could not explain as to why her
husband had deserted her. Since her children were young in age and her
husband had deserted her, therefore, she has gone to her parental home.
Thereafter, her husband used to visit her parental home and was staying for 2 to
4 days. She denied for want of knowledge that any dispute had taken place
between Ballu Lodhi and appellant. She denied that she had lodged the false
FIR. She denied the suggestion that the victim “A” was not raped by the
appellant.
13. Brother of the victim “C” (PW-3) also narrated the incident in same
manner. He was cross examined by the appellant. He denied the suggestion that
victim 'A' had suffered injury on account of her fall. He denied the suggestion
that appellant had not committed rape on the victim.
14. Dr. Brajesh Sharma (PW-4) has medically examined the appellant and
submitted his medical report (Ex.P/2). He did not find any symptom of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

6
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
impotency of appellant.
15. The mother of another victim, who was sexually assaulted by the
appellant on previous occasion “D” (P.W-5) has also stated about the act of the
appellant of committing rape on her daughter. She had further stated that even
in Khurai, the appellant has committed rape on another girl. She has further
stated that now she has come to know that appellant has committed rape on her
own daughter. Since this witness has stated about the previous conduct of the
appellant in committing rape on her daughter, therefore, her evidence is
relevant only for the purposes of conduct of the appellant.
16. The father of the girl, who was earlier raped by the appellant “E” (PW-6)
has also stated about the act of the appellant in committing rape on his minor
daughter. He has further stated that after his daughter was raped by the
appellant, he committed rape on another girl in Khurai and now he has come to
know that the appellant has committed rape on his own daughter. This witness
is also relevant for ascertaining the conduct of the appellant.
17. Palku (PW-7) is a neighbourer. He has stated that at about 7 PM, mother
of the victim “B” had come to his house and informed that appellant has
committed rape on victim “A”. He went to the house of mother of the victim
and found that the thigh of victim “A” was stained with blood and her
undergarments were wet. Since it was raining, therefore, FIR was lodged on
next day. In cross-examination, he has stated that when appellant went to jail,
then the mother of the victim went to her parental home alongwith the victim.
It was stated by him that mother of the victim “B” is the legally wedded wife of
appellant. He denied the suggestion that there was any dispute between mother
of the victim “B” and the appellant and only on that issue she has gone to her
parental home. He has further stated that appellant was also sent to jail in
connection with an offence of committing rape on another girl. He denied that
since the victim “A” had fallen down, therefore, she had sustained injury on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

7
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
her private parts.
18. Sunil Shrivastava (PW-8) is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that
he has written the FIR as per the information given by the complainant. FIR is
Ex.P/1. The FIR was read out to the complainant and thereafter, the complaint
had put her thumb impression on the FIR. The copy of FIR was sent to the
concerning Court by Dispatch No.1120 dated 15.7.2013 (Ex.P/3). The victim
was sent for medical examination. The statement of the victim was recorded.
The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/4). He was sent for medical
examination. The medical requisition form is Ex.P/2. The spot map (Ex.P/5)
was prepared on 16.07.2013 on an information given by the complainant “B”
(P.W.2). He has verified the previous criminal antecedents of the appellant and
it was found that in Crime No.418 of 2005 registered at Police Station
Pichhore. The appellant had also committed a similar offence on a minor girl,
aged about 7 years, for which he was sentenced to undergo the rigorous
imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.500/-. Copy of the crime register is
Ex.P/6. In cross-examination, he denied that the entire investigation was done
while sitting in the police station and no other question was put to this witness.
19. Babulal Parihar (PW-9) has stated that one Kallu sweeper had brought
four sealed packets and one sealed specimen from CSC Pichhore which were
seized by seizure memo (Ex.P/7). On the very same day, Head Constable
Ashok Jadoun had also brought two sealed packets and one sealed specimen
from the district hospital which were seized by seizure memo (Ex.P/8). The
requisition for medical examination of the victim “A” is (Ex.P/9). In cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that he had opened the sealed packets.
20. Dr. M.L. Agarwal (PW-10) is a Radiologist, who had conducted
ossification test of victim “A” and found that age of victim “A” is in between 8
to 10 years. The ossification test report is Ex.P/10. In cross-examination, he
denied the suggestion that he has not conducted ossification test of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

8
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
prosecutrix and only on the application made by police, he had prepared the
ossification test report without actually conducting the ossification test.
21. Kallu Ram (PW-11) had brought one sealed packet containing the
underwear, semen slides, blood sample of appellant, sealed packets containing
blood sample of victim “A” from CSC, Pichhore and handed over to Head
Constable Babulal Parihar which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/7). He
denied the suggestion that he had not brought any article.
22. Dr. Sandhya Gupta (PW-12) had medically examined the victim “A”.
She has found that on internal examination, there was redness and swelling in
the internal organs of the private part of prosecutrix. She has prepared two
slides and has also seized one underwear of black colour containing white
stains and have handed over to Police Constable Sharda No.44. An opinion was
given that there was the symptoms of an attempt of rape on the victim “A”.
MLC report is Ex.P/9. In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that
injures sustained by victim “A” could have been caused by fall.
23. Before considering the evidence which has come on record, this Court
would like to consider the law holding the case.
24. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.
Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny reported in (2017) 2 SCC 51 has held as under:-
31. After thorough analysis of all relevant and attendant
factors, we are of the opinion that none of the grounds, on
which the High Court has cleared the respondent, has any
merit. By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in
cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling
reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a
statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the
testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the
accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence.
Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the
same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding
insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to
be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of
rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon
without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

9
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her
version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which
lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration,
except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a
victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and
thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury
to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed
unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case
of an accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the
girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation
be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged
with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of
corroboration has no substance (See Bhupinder Sharma v. State
of H.P.5). Notwithstanding this legal position, in the instant
case, we even find enough corroborative material as well,
which is discussed hereinabove.
25. The Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh alias Buddha Vs. State of
Rajasthan reported in (2006) 3 SCC 771 has held as under:-
11. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of the
victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a
rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the
tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be
extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is
likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would
be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by society and
when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light,
there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than
fabricated. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury,
which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted, is the best
witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real
offender, the evidence
of a victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight,
notwithstanding the absence of corroboration. A woman or a
girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not
the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. The
observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Rameshwar v. State of
Rajasthan³ were: (SCR p. 386)
"The rule, which according to the cases has hardened
into one of law, a is not that corroboration is essential
before there can be a conviction but that the necessity
of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except
where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with
it, must be present to the mind of the judge,..."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

10
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
26. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh
and others reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 has held as under:-
8. The grounds on which the trial court disbelieved the version
of the prosecutrix are not at all sound. The findings recorded
by the trial court rebel against realism and lose their sanctity
and credibility. The court lost sight of the fact that the
prosecutrix is a village girl. She was a student of Xth Class. It
was wholly irrelevant and immaterial whether she was
ignorant of the difference between a Fiat, an Ambassador or a
Master car. Again, the statement of the prosecutrix at the trial
that she did not remember the colour of the car, though she had
given the colour of the car in the FIR was of no material effect
on the reliability of her testimony. No fault could also be found
with the prosecution version on the ground that the prosecutrix
had not raised an alarm while being abducted. The prosecutrix
in her statement categorically asserted that as soon as she was
pushed inside the car she was threatened by the accused to
keep quiet and not to raise any alarm otherwise she would be
killed. Under these circumstances to discredit the prosecutrix
for not raising an alarm while the car was passing through the
Bus Adda is traverisity of justice. The court over-looked 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 alram.
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. Trial Court fell
in error for discrediting the testimony of the prosecutrix on that
account. In our opinion, there was no delay in the lodging of
the FIR either and if at all there was some delay, the same has
not only been properly explained by the prosecution but in the
facts and circumstances of the case was also natural. The
courts cannot over-look the fact that in sexual offences delay in
the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons
particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family
members to go to the police and complain about the incident
which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the
honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought
that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. The
prosecution has explained that as soon as Trilok Singh PW6,
father of the prosecutrix came to know from his wife, PW7
about the incident he went to the village sarpanch and
complained to him. The sarpanch of the village also got in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

11
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
touch with the sarpanch of village Pakhowal, where in the tube
well kotha of Ranjit Singh rape was committed, and an effort
was made by the panchayats of the two villages to sit together
and settle the matter. It was only when the Panchayats failed to
provide any relief or render any justice to the prosecutrix, that
she and her family decided to report the matter to the police
and before doing that naturally the father and mother of the
prosecutrix discussed whether or not to lodge a report with the
police in view of the repercussions it might have on the
reputation and future prospects of the marriage etc. of their
daughter. Trilok Singh PW6 truthfully admitted that he entered
into consultation with his wife as to whether to lodge a report
or not and the trial court appears to have misunderstood the
reasons and justification for the consultation between Trilok
Singh and his wife when it found that the said circumstance
had rendered the version of the prosecutrix doubtful. Her
statement about the manner in which she was abducted and
again left near the school in the early hours of next morning
has a ring of truth. It appears that the trial court searched for
contradictions and variations in the statement of the
prosecutrix microscopically, so as to disbelieve her version.
The observations of the trial court that the story of the
prosecutrix that she was left near the examination center next
morning at about 6 a.m. was "not believable" as `the accused
would be the last persons to extend sympathy to the
prosecutrix" are not at all intelligible. The accused were not
showing "any sympathy" to the prosecutrix while driving her at
6.00 a.m. next morning to the place from where she had been
addicted but on the other hand were removing her from the
kotha of Ranjit Singh and leaving her near the examination
center so as to avoid being detected. The criticism by the trial
court of the evidence of the prosecutrix as to why she did not
complain to the lady teachers or to other girl students when
she appeared for the examination at the center and waited till
she went home and narrated the occurrence to her mother is
unjustified. The conduct of the prosecutrix in this regard
appears to us to be most natural. The trial court over-looked
that a girl, in a tradition bound non-permissive society in
India, would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any
incident which is likely to reflect upon her chastity had
occurred, being conscious of the danger of being ostracized by
the society or being looked down by the society. Her not
informing the teachers or her friends at the examination center
under the circumstances cannot detract from her reliability. In
the normal course of human conduct, this unmarried minor
girl, would not like to give publicity to the traumatic
experience she had undergone and would feel terribly
embarrassed in relation to the incident to narrate it to her
teachers and others over-powered by a feeling of shame and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

12
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
her natural inclination would be to avoid talking about it to
any one, lest the family name and honour is brought into
controversy. Therefore her informing to her mother only on
return to the parental house and no one else at the examination
center prior thereto is an accord with the natural human
conduct of a female. 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 over-look. 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. Why should the evidence of a girl of a woman who
complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt,
disbelief or suspicion? The Court while appreciating the
evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her
statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a
witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled
by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon
corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an
accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands
almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an
extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has
sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to
be self inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense
that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a
victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of
corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not
an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of
rape. 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. It must not
be over-looked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual
assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of
another persons's lust and it is improper and undesirable to
test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

13
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn
from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic
diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in
the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of
testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot
cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if,
taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime
strikes the judicial mind as probable. In State of Maharashtra
Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain Ahmadi, J. (as the Lord
Chief Justice then was) speaking for the Bench summarized the
position in the following words:
"A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on 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 prosecurtix 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
of 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."
27. Thus, it is clear that when the solitary evidence from the prosecutrix is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

14
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
found to be reliable and convincing, then asking for further corroboration
would be nothing, but adding insult to her injury. However, in the present case
even the evidence of victim “A” find full corroboration from the MLC
(Ex.P/9). Redness and swelling were found on the internal organs of private
part of the victim “A” which was suggestive of an attempt to commit rape. It is
submitted by Shri Ashok jain that as the hymen of the victim “A” was found
intact, therefore, it is clear that allegations of committing rape or penetrative
assault are false.
28. Heard the submission made by counsel for appellant.
29. Section 3 of the POCSO Act, 2012 reads 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 or 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.
30. From the plain reading of Section 3 of POCSO Act, it is clear that
penetration to any extent into the various parts of the body of the victim as
mentioned in Section 3 or manipulation of any part of the body of child so as to
cause penetration would amount to penetrative sexual assault which is
punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act. It is true that hymen was found
intact, but in view of the presence of injuries on the internal organs of private
part of the victim “A”, Dr. Sandhya Agarwal (PW-12) has rightly given an
opinion that symptoms were suggestive of an attempt to rape. Since
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

15
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
manipulation of the body of victim with an intention to penetrate by itself
would be penetrative sexual assault, therefore, it is held that merely because the
hymen was found intact, it cannot be held that she was not subjected to
penetrative sexual assault.
31. Furthermore, the evidence of victim “A” is corroborated by the evidence
of mother of victim “B” (PW-2), brother of victim “C” (PW-3). Panku (PW-7)
has also corroborated the evidence of mother of victim “B” by categorically
stating that immediately after the incident, mother of victim “B” had narrated
the incident to this witness and this witness has also seen blood on thigh of
victim “A” as well as undergarments of victim were wet. Doctor as well as the
witnesses have specifically denied the suggestion that the injuries sustained by
victim were caused on account of her fall.
32. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
not only the evidence of victim “A” (PW-1) is reliable and trustworthy, but her
evidence is further corroborated by medical evidence (MLC Ex.P-9) as well as
the evidence of her mother of victim “B” (PW-2), brother of victim “C” (PW-3)
and Panku (PW-7). Accordingly, Trial Court did not commit any mistake by
convicting the appellant under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 4 of
POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant for offence under
Section 376 of IPC and under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 is hereby
affirmed .
33. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is submitted by
counsel for appellant that since minimum sentence for offence under Section 4
of POCSO Act is 10 years, therefore, sentence of life imprisonment may be
reduced to the minimum sentence of 10 years.
34. Heard the submission made by counsel for appellant.
35. This is an unfortunate case where the daughter has suffered sexual
assault by her own biological father. The girl has every right to live her life
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM

16
Cr.A No. 426 of 2014
with all respect and dignity.
36. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Madan Lal reported
in (2015) 7 SCC 681 has held that the body of victim is her own “Temple”. If a
minor girl aged about 7 years is not safe in her house, then it will be high time
for this Court to consider as to whether we are living in a civilized society or
not. Not only the appellant had committed rape on his own minor daughter, but
according to the criminal antecedents, the appellant had also committed rape of
another minor girl aged about 7 years for which he was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of 7 years with a fine of Rs.500/-. Although the
witnesses have also stated that similar act was committed by the appellant on a
girl in Khurai, but there was no evidence to that effect.
37. Be that whatever it may be.
38. Looking to the serious conduct of the appellant and possibility of
repetition of same offence with the other girl, this Court is of the considered
opinion that life imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court cannot be said to be
on a higher side. In fact the sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate in
view of the conduct of appellant.
39. Under these circumstances, sentence of life imprisonment awarded by
the Trial Court does not call for any interference and accordingly, it is hereby
affirmed . Appellant is in jail. He shall undergo his remaining jail sentence.
40. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith record of the Trial Court be sent
back to the Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
41. Appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed .
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Rashid
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 7/20/2026
5:40:54 PM