LexDEEPAK KUMAR SAHU versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 395 : 2025 INSC 929 Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 3352 of 2025) 05 August 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellant came to be convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable u/ss.450 and 376(2) of the IPC and s.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO Act]. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding and confirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant-convict, by the trial court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 450, 376(2) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.4 – Allegation that appellant- accused entered the house of victim aged about 15 years and sent her brother aged about 11 years to bring a pack of chewing tobacco – Once the brother left the house, the accused forced the victim to lie on the cot lying in the porch of the house, gagged her mouth and then committed sexual intercourse – Trial Court convicted accused u/ss.450, 376(2) of IPC and s.4 of the POCSO Act – The High Court upheld and confirm the conviction – Correctness: Held: 1. The High Court was wholly justified in upholding and confirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant- convict, by the trial court. [Para 6.3] 2. Evaluating the total evidence in light of the principles of law, evidentiary appreciation and application, with the evidence of the victim at the forefront, it has to be stated that victim’s evidence was entirely probable, natural and trustworthy who with lucidity narrated the whole incident about commission of offence against her by the accused – There exists no reason, much less compelling reasons, to disbelieve and discard her testimony – Her brother’s testimony as a child witness was rationally and logically supportive * Author 396 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports of what the prosecutrix narrated – The factum that the cot was in the porch and the victim was forced to lay there by the accused could also be called out from the evidence. [Para 6] 3. There was a consistency lent – The conduct of the victim, soon after the incident was quite natural, as she went to cousin sister’s neighbouring house and through her, informed cousin brother and her parents who were away. [Para 6.1] 4. The crux of the incident, of accused overpowering the victim and committing forcible act by forcing her to the bed, could be clearly established from the totality of evidence adduced by the prosecution. [Para 6.2] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.450, 376(2) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.4 – Appellant-accused convicted by the trial Court u/ss.450, 376(2) of IPC and s.4 of the POCSO Act – It was contended by the accused that non- availability of emphatic medical evidence about occurrence of physical intercourse and absence of external injury marks make it imperative to doubt and disregard the evidence of the prosecutrix: Held: 1. The contention that non-availability of emphatic medical evidence about occurrence of physical intercourse and absence of external injury marks make it imperative to doubt and disregard the evidence of the prosecutrix, could hardly be countenanced. [Para 5.4.1] 2. The crux of the incident, of accused overpowering the victim and committing forcible act by forcing her to the bed, could be clearly established from the totality of evidence adduced by the prosecution – Merely because the medical evidence was less corroborative and less supportive or absent in details or indictive of no external injuries – It in no way weakened the prosecution case – Sole testimony of the victim was a strong evidence to rely on along with available attendant evidence. [Para 6.2] Case Law Cited State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [1996] 1 SCR 532 : (1996) 2 SCC 384; Lok Mal alias Loku v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 4 SCC 470; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh [2018] 14 SCR 904 : (2019) 16 SCC 759 – relied on. [2025] 8 S.C.R. 397 Deepak Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2009] 15 SCR 1207 : (2010) 2 SCC 9; Raju alias Umakant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 997; State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [1990] 1 SCR 115 : (1990) 1 SCC 550; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [1983] 3 SCR 280 : (1983) 3 SCC 217; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj [1999] Supp. 4 SCR 286 : (2001) 1 SCC 247; Ousu Varghese v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.