Facts
The State appealed an acquittal order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur.
Source reference: para. 1The 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, 18The 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, 22The Trial Court acquitted the respondents, citing missing independent witnesses and potential medical contradictions.
Source reference: paras. 7, 9Issues
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. 11Whether the identification of the accused via the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the victim’s testimony was sufficient to establish guilt.
Source reference: para. 26Law 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, 48It also applied Section 119 of the IPC regarding public servants concealing a design to commit an offence.
Source reference: para. 49Legally, the Court relied on Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. concerning the utility of TIP.
Source reference: para. 28Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan regarding the necessity of corroboration in rape cases.
Source reference: para. 31Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi defining the "sterling witness".
Source reference: para. 34The 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, 35Reasoning
The Court found the Trial Court’s acquittal "perverse" and based on a misappreciation of evidence.
Source reference: para. 45Although 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, 29The 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. 39The FSL report confirmed human sperm on the victim's clothing, providing scientific corroboration.
Source reference: para. 38Regarding 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. 49Holding
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, 51Respondents 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, 52The Court ordered the respondents to surrender within two weeks.
Source reference: para. 53Acts & Sections Cited
14 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734
Indian Penal Code, 18606
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20124
Original Court PDF
State of Chhattisgarh v. Philomina Kerketta & Ors. [2026:CGHC:9424-DB (ACQA No. 227 of 2018)]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![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 Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/sole-testimony-of-a-credible-sexual-assault-victim-is-sufficient-for-conviction-without-in-82b8e0ada2564e4cb31e75c5ab3edded.webp)