Holding

The conviction of the appellant under the IPC, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the POCSO Act is upheld.

Summary

The appellant was convicted under the IPC, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the POCSO Act for raping an 11‑year‑old girl belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. The prosecution relied on the child’s testimony, medical examination showing hymen rupture and a vaginal wall tear, and forensic evidence of blood and semen on the victim’s clothing. The defence argued that the child’s statements were inconsistent, the forensic link to the accused was inconclusive, and there was no independent corroboration. The Court held that minor variations in a child’s narrative are natural, the medical and forensic evidence corroborated the core allegations, and the victim’s testimony inspired confidence. Consequently, the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
Whether the child victim’s testimony, despite minor inconsistencies, is reliable and sufficient for conviction.
Whether lack of independent corroboration or inconclusive DNA testing defeats the prosecution case.
Whether the forensic and medical evidence substantiate the alleged sexual assault.
Whether the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provisions are applicable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 374
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 376(2)(i)(d)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s. 4
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s. 3(1)(xi), s. 3(2)(v)

Subjects

child sexual abuserapePOCSO ActSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Actforensic evidencechild witness credibilityconviction upheldappeal dismissed

Judgment

R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1455 of 2015
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (TEMPORARY BAIL) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1455 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
ARVINDBHAI @ BHADABHAI SHANABHAI @ SHANKARBHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 07/01/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 15.09.2015 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in
Special Case No. 24 of 2014 under the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), the appellant-accused has been
convicted of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(d) read with

Page 1 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 3(1)(xi) and
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The learned Sessions Court
sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
life and fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default stipulation, and in the
alternative, Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine. Consequently,
the appellant-accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal under
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), challenging
the said conviction and sentence.

2. The brief facts that have given rise to the filing of the present
appeal are comprehensively set out as follows:

2.1. The prosecutrix, who was a minor girl aged approximately 11 years
belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community and residing with her
grandparents in village Amliyara, Taluka Kalol, District Panchmahal,
made serious allegations against the appellant-accused. According to her
complaint, on 01.05.2013 at approximately 08:00 a.m., she was sent by
one Mohanbhai to purchase beedis from Balakaka's shop located in the
village. While returning from the shop carrying the beedis, accused No.1
along with accused No.2 allegedly caught hold of her, forcibly dragged
her to a secluded jungle area situated near the hill within the village
limits, and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will and
consent. The specific allegations included that accused No. 1 pressed her
mouth to stifle her cries and prevent her from seeking help, forcibly
removed her lower garments as well as his own garments, and penetrated
her vagina forcibly, causing bleeding and physical injuries to her. It was
further alleged that the other accused person stood watch during the
commission of the offence. After the traumatic incident, the prosecutrix

Page 2 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

returned home in a dazed and distressed state, informed her aunt
Mamtaben about the incident, who subsequently summoned the
grandmother Maniben. This led to a formal complaint being lodged
through the sarpanch at Vajlpur Police Station, which was duly registered
as I-C.R. No. 63 of 2013.

2.2. Following the registration of the FIR, a comprehensive
investigation ensued under the supervision of the investigating
authorities. The investigation included recording detailed statements of
all relevant witnesses, preparation of panchnamas of the crime scene and
seizure of material evidence (muddamal) including soil samples with
blood stains and the prosecutrix's clothes, conducting medical
examination of both the prosecutrix and accused No. 1, effecting the
arrest of accused No. 1 and seizure of his clothes as potential evidence,
and forwarding all collected samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory
(FSL), Gandhinagar for detailed scientific analysis and examination.
Upon finding sufficient prima facie evidence against accused No. 1
during the course of investigation, a chargesheet was duly filed against
him under the aforementioned sections of law. Since the case was triable
by the Special Court under the POCSO Act provisions, it was committed
to the Special Court and registered as Special Case No. 24 of 2014.
Formal charges were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed his right to trial.

3. During the course of the trial proceedings, the prosecution
examined comprehensive oral and documentary evidence to establish the
guilt of the appellant-accused. The evidence included the testimony of the
prosecutrix herself, medical evidence from examining doctors, forensic
evidence from laboratory analysis, and testimony from investigating
officers and other relevant witnesses to substantiate the charges framed

Page 3 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

against the accused.

Oral Evidence

Sr. No. Particulars Exh. No.

1 PW-1: Deposition of Prosecutrix 11

2 PW-2: Deposition of Narasinh Mohansinh Gohil 17

3 PW-3: Deposition of Kanubhai Bhalabhai Gohil 22

PW-4: Deposition of Somabhai Mangalbhai
4 23
Chauhan

5 PW-5: Deposition of Ganpatbhai Pratapbhai Parmar 28

6 PW-6: Deposition of Mohansinh Amarsinh Patel 29

PW-7: Deposition of Chandrasinh Shanabhai
7 31
Parmar

8 PW-8: Deposition of Bhavikkumar Gopalbhai Raval 36

PW-9: Deposition of Dr. Kamleshprasad
9 38
Shivnandan Prasad

PW-10: Deposition of Dr. Rajenbhai Bhagwanbhai
10 41
Chudasama

11 PW-11: Deposition of Maniben Mohanbhai Nayak 43

12 PW-12: Deposition of Mamtaben Girishbhai Nayak 44

PW-13: Deposition of Hareshbhai Govindbhai
13 45
Pallacharya

PW-14: Deposition of Virendrasinh Nandsinh
14 47
Chauhan

Page 4 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

Sr. No. Particulars Exh. No.

15 PW-15: Deposition of Baluben Deepsinh 48

PW-15: Deposition of Bhimjibhai Shankarbhai
16 49
Ninama

PW-16: Deposition of Bhavnaben Rakeshkumar
17 51
Patel

18 PW-17: Virendrasinh Nandsinh Chaudhan 53

Documentary Evidence
Sr. No. Particulars Exh. No.

1 FIR/Complaint 8

2 Panchnama of Crime Scene 18

3 Panchnama of Accused No.1's Body Condition 24

4 Arrest Panchnama of Accused No.1 25

Discovery Panchnama u/s 27 CrPC (Scene Pointed
5 30
by Accused)

6 Panchnama of Seizure of Prosecutrix's Clothes 32

7 Panchnama of Accused No.2's Body Condition 37

Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) of prosecutrix
8 39
from General Hospital

9 MLC of prosecutrix 42

10 MLC of Accused No.1 40

Page 5 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

Sr. No. Particulars Exh. No.

11 Caste Certificate of Prosecutrix (SC/ST) 50

12 Report by Investigating Officer to PSO 55

13 Muddamal Separation Memo 56

14 Letter to FSL 57

15 Muddamal Dispatch Note 58

16 Preliminary FSL Report 46

17 Physical Fitness Certificate of Accused No.1 59

18 FSL Report on Muddamal Examination 61

19 Serology Examination Report 62

4. After the closure of prosecution evidence and recording the
statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he
categorically denied all charges and attributed his false implication to
enmity with the sarpanch arising from electoral rivalry, the learned
Special Court proceeded to appreciate the evidence in its entirety. Upon
careful consideration and evaluation of all evidence presented, the learned
Special Court convicted accused No. 1 as stated above, while
simultaneously acquitting accused No. 2 due to lack of proper
identification and insufficient corroboration of evidence against him.

Page 6 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

5. The learned advocate for the appellant assailed the impugned
judgment, contending with considerable force that the prosecution had
fundamentally failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt,
which is the standard requirement in criminal cases. He submitted with
specific reference to the evidence that the testimony of the prosecutrix
(PW-1, Exh. 11), who was a child witness aged approximately 11 years
and an illiterate villager, was replete with material contradictions and
significant omissions when compared to her FIR (Exh. 8) and her
statement recorded before the police during investigation. He specifically
pointed out several discrepancies, including the fact that in the FIR, she
mentioned being sent by "dada Maganbhai" but in her deposition before
the court, she clarified it was Mohanbhai, who was her neighbor. He
further argued that the description of being dragged for approximately 50
feet with her head rubbing against the ground causing abrasion was
completely absent in the FIR. Additionally, regarding the post-incident
circumstances, she claimed in her police statement that she had fainted
briefly, but in her court deposition, she stated that she merely rested due
to bleeding, thereby creating a material inconsistency in her version of
events. The learned advocate for the appellant further contended that the
FIR appeared to be tutored and dictated by the sarpanch, containing
sophisticated language that was unfit for a minor child to articulate, with
only her signature or thumbnail impression appearing below the
complaint, thereby raising serious doubts about the voluntariness and
authenticity of the complaint. He argued that no independent witness such
as the shopkeeper Balakaka was examined to corroborate her visit to
purchase beedis, nor were any beedis recovered from the crime scene,
which undermined the foundational fact of her presence at the alleged
location.

6. The learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the

Page 7 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

prosecutrix had completely failed to identify the second person (accused
No. 2) despite his presence during the trial proceedings, and no
identification parade was conducted by the investigating authorities to
establish the identity of the accused persons, which significantly
weakened the prosecution case. He emphasized that the medical evidence
presented through PW-9 (Exh. 38), PW-10 (Exh. 41), and Exh. 42
showed no external injuries on her body including the waist, chest,
thighs, face, and breasts, despite the alleged forceful dragging and
physical resistance, which was highly unnatural for a case involving rape
of a minor child. He pointed out that while PW-9, Dr. Kamleshprasad,
noted that the hymen was ruptured and there was vaginal bleeding, there
were no genital tears or scratches observed during the initial examination.
The prosecutrix was subsequently referred to SSG Vadodara where
surgical intervention revealed a lateral vaginal wall tear measuring 3-4
cm with stitches and 100 gm blood clots, but he argued that this medical
condition was entirely consistent with possible self-injury such as a fall
while playing. He further questioned the reliability of the age estimation
conducted through ossification test (Exh. 42), which placed her age
between 9-12 years, arguing that it lacked credibility without direct
examination by a qualified radiologist.

7. The learned advocate for the appellant further argued that while the
FSL report (Exh. 61, 62) detected human semen on the prosecutrix's
undergarments mixed with blood (Group O, which matched her blood
group), the accused's semen sample was inconclusive and could not be
definitively linked to him. He contended that the blood found on the
accused's clothes (Group A, which matched his blood group) could have
originated from any unrelated source and was not specifically linked to
the incident in question. He emphasized that no DNA profiling was
conducted by the investigating authorities, which created a significant gap

Page 8 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

in the scientific evidence. He further pointed out that the panch witnesses
(PW-2 to PW-8, Exhs. 17, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 36) had turned completely
hostile during the trial proceedings, failing to corroborate the panchnamas
including the crime scene panchnama (Exh. 18), seizure of clothes
panchnama (Exh. 32), and arrest panchnama (Exh. 25), which indicated
biased and faulty investigation by the Investigating Officer (PW-13, Exh.
45). He emphasized the complete lack of corroboration from independent
witnesses, noting that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident despite
it allegedly occurring near a brick kiln with approximately 200 labourers
and regular road traffic in the area. He concluded by highlighting the
enmity motive between the accused and the sarpanch arising from
electoral rivalry, arguing that the accused was entitled to the benefit of
doubt and praying for the appeal to be allowed and the conviction to be
set aside.

8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing
the State strongly supported the impugned judgment and urged for the
dismissal of the appeal in its entirety. He submitted with conviction that
the prosecutrix's testimony (PW-1, Exh. 11) was natural and consistent on
all core facts, including being sent to purchase beedis, being grabbed by
accused No. 1 who was a known villager, being dragged to a secluded
location, having her mouth gagged, and suffering forcible penetration
causing bleeding. He argued that her testimony inspired confidence and
should be accepted by the court. He contended that minor embellishments
and variations such as the sender's name and whether she rested or fainted
were completely immaterial for a rustic child witness and were not fatal
to the prosecution case. He emphasized that the FIR was prompt, having
been lodged on the same day, and was detailed despite the sarpanch's
assistance in drafting, which reflected the trauma experienced by the
child. The medical evidence, he argued, fully corroborated the

Page 9 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

allegations, with PW-9 noting fresh hymen rupture and vaginal bleeding,
while the subsequent report from SSG Hospital confirmed penetrative
injury requiring surgical intervention, which would be impossible to
result from a mere fall for an 11-year-old child.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the FSL
reports (Exh. 61-62) clearly linked the presence of human semen on the
undergarments with blood stains matching the incident timeline, while
the accused's clothes bore blood of Group O (matching the prosecutrix's
blood group), which remained unexplained by the accused. He contended
that the hostility of panch witnesses was a common phenomenon in rural
areas due to fear and social pressure, but the investigation remained fair
and proper with the FSL officer being called promptly, muddamal being
properly sealed, and the chain of custody being maintained intact. He
emphasized that the relatives (PW-11 grandmother and PW-12 aunt,
Exhs. 43-44) corroborated the post-incident disclosure, bloodied clothes,
and immediate action taken by the family. He argued that the
investigation was unbiased with multiple investigating officers (PW-13,
PW-14, PW-16) being involved in different aspects, and no enmity was
shown against the accused by the investigating authorities. He contended
that the prosecutrix's inability to identify the accomplice was irrelevant as
the charge against accused No. 1 stood alone and independent. In POCSO
cases, he argued, a child's testimony, if credible, needs no corroboration.

10. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at
length and have carefully perused the impugned judgment as well as the
entire record and proceedings, including the depositions of witnesses,
documentary evidence and the FSL reports. The principal issue that arises
for our consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the charges
beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant-accused No. 1 so as to

Page 10 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

sustain his conviction under the IPC, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the POCSO Act, or whether any
interference is warranted in appeal.

11. We find that in cases of sexual offences against a child, the
testimony of the prosecutrix can be relied upon even without independent
corroboration, if it appears truthful and trustworthy. At the same time,
this Court must carefully examine the evidence, particularly medical and
forensic evidence, to see whether any material inconsistency creates a
reasonable doubt.

12. We find that the issue of competency of the victim to depose does
not raise any concern. The learned Sessions Court had put preliminary
questions to the victim, satisfied itself about her ability to understand and
answer, and thereafter recorded her deposition.

13. We further find that the victim is, in a procedural sense, the sole
eyewitness, since the incident occurred in a secluded place and no
independent eyewitness could be expected. However, the law permits
conviction on the testimony of a sole witness, including a sole
prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence.

14. On a careful scrutiny of the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find
that she has consistently stated that on 01.05.2013 at about 08:00 a.m.,
when her grandparents were away, Mohanbhai sent her to purchase
beedis. While returning near the hill, accused No. 1 caught her hand and
dragged her about 50 feet into the jungle area, removed her pajama and
also removed his pant and underwear, gagged her mouth, mounted her
and committed penetration despite her resistance and cries. She also
stated that another man was watching from a distance. She further stated

Page 11 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

that after the incident there was vaginal bleeding, her clothes were stained
with blood, she rested due to pain and bleeding, then went home and
immediately informed her aunt Mamtaben. Thereafter the grandmother
was called and they went to the sarpanch and then to the Police Station
where FIR (Exh. 8) came to be lodged. She has identified accused No. 1
in Court and stated that she was treated at Godhra and thereafter at
Vadodara.

15. It appears from the record that certain minor variations were
brought out in cross-examination, such as: in FIR she referred to “dada
Maganbhai” instead of Mohanbhai; in the police statement there is a
reference to “fainting” whereas in Court she stated she “rested due to
pain”; initially a thumb impression was taken and later a signature
appears; beedis were not recovered; and she stated she did not know the
entire contents of the FIR at the time of recording. We find that these are
not material contradictions. They are natural differences expected in the
narration of a child witness and do not affect the core case of dragging,
gagging, penetration and bleeding.

16. It also transpires from the record that the defense suggestion that
the prosecutrix was tutored by the sarpanch due to enmity is only an
allegation and was denied by the victim. No reliable material has been
placed to establish such enmity or to show that it resulted in a false case.

17. We also find that there is no reason on record to believe that the
victim would falsely implicate the accused. In offences of this nature, it is
unlikely that a victim would make a false allegation and face social
stigma and trauma without the incident having occurred.

18. The version of the prosecutrix is supported by the immediate

Page 12 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

disclosure and the evidence of family members. PW-11 (grandmother)
has stated that the prosecutrix returned home crying with blood on her
clothes and disclosed that she was raped by Bhadabhai (accused No. 1)
along with an unknown man, and that they immediately went to the
sarpanch and thereafter to the Police Station. PW-12 (aunt) has stated that
the prosecutrix returned in a distressed condition with blood on her
clothes and legs, she called the grandmother, and thereafter the complaint
was written and they went to the Police Station. We find that although
PW-12 is not an eyewitness, her evidence about the victim’s immediate
condition and disclosure is natural and supports the prosecution version.

19. The medical evidence strongly supports the allegation of
penetrative sexual assault. PW-9 examined the prosecutrix on 01.05.2013
and found her conscious and coherent. Though no external injuries were
noted on the waist, chest, thighs, face or breasts, he found the hymen
ruptured and active vaginal bleeding. Her blood group was O positive and
she had not attained menarche. She was referred to Vadodara. PW-10
examined accused No. 1 (aged 32 years), found no injuries on him, found
him potent, and recorded his blood group as A positive.

20. It also appears from the record that the hospital record from SSG
Hospital shows that the prosecutrix was admitted from 02.05.2013 to
07.05.2013 and underwent surgical treatment. The operative findings
show a 3-4 cm lateral vaginal wall tear requiring stitches and removal of
about 100 gm of blood clots. Ossification test assessed her age between
9-12 years. We find that the defense suggestion of injury by fall does not
explain such a specific internal injury requiring surgery.

21. The forensic evidence further supports the prosecution case. The
scene report (Exh. 46) notes blood-like fluid at the spot. The FSL report

Page 13 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

(Exh. 61) shows that the soil from the scene contained human blood of
Group O. The prosecutrix’s clothes, including salwar, kameez, dupatta
and underwear, contained blood (Group O) and semen mixed together.
The accused’s pant and T-shirt contained blood of Group A and other
stains. The serology report (Exh. 62) confirms that the semen was of
human origin. Though semen matching to the accused was inconclusive,
we find that the presence of human semen on the prosecutrix’s garments
and the blood grouping results provide strong support to the prosecution
case when read with the other evidence.

22. The contention that the blood could be from unrelated sources is
without merit, as no plausible explanation has been offered by the
accused. The chain of custody is supported by the evidence of PW-13 and
the sealed muddamal. The inconclusive semen matching does not create a
reasonable doubt when the total scientific and medical evidence is
considered together.

23. It appears from the record that PW-13 has explained the
investigation steps, including registration of FIR, scene visit with FSL
officer and panchs, seizure of blood-stained soil and clothes, arrest of
accused No. 1, preparation of panchnamas and sending samples for
analysis. PW-14 and PW-16 have spoken about subsequent steps
including the caste certificate (Exh. 50), addition of Atrocities Act
provisions and dispatch of muddamal with proper documentation (Exh.
57-58). We find that hostility of panch witnesses (PW-2 to PW-8) does
not by itself break the prosecution case when the official evidence and
documents remain reliable. No material is shown to establish bias or
malafides in investigation.

24. It is an opt-reiterated dictum of law that in cases of rape, the

Page 14 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

testimony of the prosecutrix alone may be sufficient and sole evidence of
the victim, when cogent and consistent, could be properly used to arrive
at a finding of the guilt. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh,
(2019) 16 SCC 759, this Court in terms stated that conviction can be
rested on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone.

“The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix,
if it inspires confidence. The conviction can be based solely on the solitary
evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration be required unless there
are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts to insist for
corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of the testimony of the
prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence under
the given facts and circumstances. Minor contractions or small
discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of the
prosecutrix.”

25. It was further asserted that corroboration is not an essential
requirement for conviction in the cases of rape. It is well settled by a
catena of decisions of the Supreme Court 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. However, having
regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence may not be
available. In such cases, solitary testimony of the prosecutrix would be
sufficient to base the conviction, if it inspires the confidence of the court.

26. From a recent decision in Raju alias Umakant vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2025 SCC OnLine SC 997), following observations could be
noticed:

Page 15 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

“…….a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice
but a victim of another person's lust and it will be improper and
undesirable to test her evidence with suspicion. All that the law mandates
is that the Court should 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
charge levelled by her and if after keeping that aspect in mind if the Court
is thereafter satisfied that the evidence is trustworthy, there is nothing that
can stop the Court from acting on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
[See State of Rajasthan v. N.K. the Accused, (2000) 5 SCC 30, Rameshwar
v. State of Rajasthan, 1951 SCC 1213, State of Maharashtra v.
Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550, State of Punjab v.
Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384]”

27. The sensitive approach and greater inclination to rely on the
creditworthy evidence of the victim is guided by the aspect as observed in
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, [(1983) 3 SCC
217] it was observed thus:

“In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual
assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury.
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?"

28. On overall consideration, we find that the testimony of the
prosecutrix inspires confidence, is not shaken by any material
contradiction, and is supported by prompt disclosure, medical evidence
and FSL evidence. We find that the prosecution has proved the guilt of
accused No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, no interference is
called for in appeal.

29. In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in
the foregoing paragraphs, the present appeal fails and is accordingly

Page 16 of 17
R/CR.A/1455/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the present appeal, the connected
temporary bail application becomes infructuous and the same is also
disposed of accordingly. Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to
the Court concerned forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/01/2026 12:26:05

Page 17 of 17