Chhattisgarh High Court

Sole testimony of a credible sexual assault victim is sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration.

State of Chhattisgarh v. Philomina Kerketta & Ors. [2026:CGHC:9424-DB (ACQA No. 227 of 2018)]

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: no citation2 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The State appealed an acquittal order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur.

Source reference: para. 1

The prosecution alleged that on 09.09.2015, the minor victim (8 years old), a student at Jyoti Mission School, was sexually assaulted in the hostel by Respondent No. 2 (the Principal/Father).

Source reference: paras. 2, 18

The victim reported bleeding to Respondent No. 1 (Philomina) and Respondent No. 3 (Kismariya), who allegedly suppressed the information, physically assaulted the victim for reporting it, and directed her to apply mustard oil to her injuries.

Source reference: paras. 2, 22

The Trial Court acquitted the respondents, citing missing independent witnesses and potential medical contradictions.

Source reference: paras. 7, 9
02

Issues

Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents by failing to properly appreciate the testimony of the minor victim and corroborating medical/scientific evidence.

Source reference: para. 11

Whether the identification of the accused via the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the victim’s testimony was sufficient to establish guilt.

Source reference: para. 26
03

Law Applied

The Court applied Section 375 (Rape) and 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault).

Source reference: paras. 20, 48

It also applied Section 119 of the IPC regarding public servants concealing a design to commit an offence.

Source reference: para. 49

Legally, the Court relied on Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. concerning the utility of TIP.

Source reference: para. 28

Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan regarding the necessity of corroboration in rape cases.

Source reference: para. 31

Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi defining the "sterling witness".

Source reference: para. 34

The Court emphasized that under the POCSO Act, the protection of the child is paramount, and a victim’s testimony stands on par with an injured witness.

Source reference: paras. 33, 35
04

Reasoning

The Court found the Trial Court’s acquittal "perverse" and based on a misappreciation of evidence.

Source reference: para. 45

Although the Trial Court doubted the identification, the High Court noted that the victim identified Respondent No. 2 in a TIP and provided a consistent version in her Section 164 CrPC statement and Court deposition.

Source reference: paras. 27, 22, 29

The Court rejected the defense’s argument regarding medical contradictions; it clarified that the first medical exam (10.09.2015) showing injuries carried higher probative weight than the second exam (16.09.2015), as minor soft-tissue injuries in children heal rapidly.

Source reference: para. 39

The FSL report confirmed human sperm on the victim's clothing, providing scientific corroboration.

Source reference: para. 38

Regarding Respondents 1 and 3, the Court determined they were public servants who intentionally concealed a design to commit a grave offence, thereby facilitating the crime through their omission.

Source reference: para. 49
05

Holding

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the acquittal.

Respondent No. 2 (Joseph Dhanna Swami): Convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(d)(f)(i)(k) IPC. Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of ₹10,000.

Source reference: paras. 48, 51

Respondents No. 1 & 3 (Philomina and Kismariya): Convicted under Section 119 IPC. Sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 each.

Source reference: paras. 49, 52

The Court ordered the respondents to surrender within two weeks.

Source reference: para. 53
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

State of Chhattisgarh v. Philomina Kerketta & Ors. [2026:CGHC:9424-DB (ACQA No. 227 of 2018)]

Chhattisgarh High Court · no citation

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment