Sterling testimony of prosecutrix sustains rape conviction despite absence of DNA profiling and medical corroboration.

The incident occurred on the intervening night of 27-28 December 2017.

The victim (PW-02) alleged that the appellant (A-1) and two co-accused (A-2 and A-3) committed gang rape, used obscene language, and threatened her

The prosecution relied on a medical report (Ex.P/23), FSL report (Ex.C-1) showing human sperm, and a caste certificate (Ex.P/17)

The Trial Court acquitted A-2 and A-3 but convicted A-1 for rape under Section 376 of the IPC and various sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

A-1 appealed against his conviction (CRA-1057-2021), while the victim appealed to enhance A-1’s conviction to gang rape under Section 376D of the IPC (CRA-1418-2021)

The Court applied Section 376 of the IPC concerning rape and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act

It relied on Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011), which emphasizes the necessity of DNA profiling or semen matching to create a "foolproof case" in sexual assault matters

Citing State of MP v. Dayal Sahu (2005), the Court noted that a conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony if it is of "sterling quality," even if medical evidence is not fully proved

Regarding the SC/ST Act, the Court referred to the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes... (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013, which identifies the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) as the competent authority for issuing caste certificates

Regarding the rape conviction, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to examine the medical officer (Dr. S. Praveen) and did not conduct DNA matching between the appellant and the samples found on the victim

Despite these forensic lapses, the Court found the victim’s testimony (PW-02) to be consistent, credible, and of "sterling quality," thereby justifying the conviction under Section 376 IPC

Regarding the SC/ST Act charges, the Court found the caste certificate (Ex.P/17) invalid because it was issued by a Tehsildar, who was not the competent authority under the 2013 Rules and circulars

Furthermore, the witness produced to prove the certificate (PW-08) could not verify the issuer's identity

Regarding the victim's appeal for enhancement, the Court noted that the Trial Court had never framed a charge under Section 376D IPC

Since the co-accused had already been acquitted (and those acquittals were finalized by the High Court), and the appellant was not given an opportunity to defend a gang rape charge, converting the conviction would cause substantial prejudice

However, it set aside the conviction under Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r), and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act due to the failure to prove the victim's caste status through a valid certificate

The Court dismissed CRA-1418-2021 (victim's appeal), holding that a conviction under Section 376D IPC was impermissible as the charge was never framed and the co-accused were acquitted