News Citation : 2025 LN (HC) 5
Bilaspur, July 28, 2025 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has upheld the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment awarded to Manoj Kumar Agrawal in a gang rape case dating back to 2003, dismissing his criminal appeal against the trial court verdict. The judgment was delivered on July 28, 2025, by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, who found no merit in the appeal and affirmed that the prosecution had successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The case arose from an incident that took place on the evening of January 7, 2003, in Baradwar area of Janjgir-Champa district. According to the prosecution, the victim, a young girl, had been sent by her mother to purchase vegetables when she was intercepted on a deserted road by the appellant and another youth. She was allegedly taken to a secluded spot near a residential house, forced to the ground, and sexually assaulted. Her brother, who went searching after she did not return home, reportedly reached the spot and witnessed the assault, following which the accused fled.
An FIR was lodged on January 10, 2003, after the victim’s father returned home from out of station. During trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, convicted Manoj Kumar Agrawal under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 2,000. The co-accused, Neeraj Agrawal, was acquitted after the trial court found inconsistencies regarding his identification.
Challenging the conviction, the appellant argued before the High Court that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of three days and that there were material contradictions in the statements of the victim and her family members. The defence also contended that since the co-accused had been acquitted, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of parity. It was further argued that the evidence only suggested that the appellant had held the victim’s hands and did not establish his role in committing rape.
The State opposed these submissions, asserting that the victim had consistently identified the appellant throughout the proceedings and that the delay in lodging the FIR had been satisfactorily explained due to family circumstances and social stigma.
After examining the evidence, the High Court placed strong reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, observing that her statement remained consistent from the initial complaint through trial. The court reiterated that in cases of sexual assault, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence and is of sterling quality. The judgment emphasised that Indian courts have repeatedly held that corroboration is not mandatory where the victim’s version is trustworthy and reliable.
The court also rejected the argument based on acquittal of the co-accused, clarifying that in cases of gang rape, the principle of common intention applies. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court observed that even if rape is committed by one person acting in furtherance of common intention, all participants involved in facilitating the crime are deemed guilty under law.
Medical evidence showing injuries consistent with sexual assault further strengthened the prosecution case. The court noted that the trial court had properly appreciated both oral and medical evidence while recording the conviction.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial court. As the appellant was on bail, his bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to surrender immediately before the concerned court to serve the remaining sentence. The judgment also recorded that the appellant remains at liberty to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court with legal assistance, if he so chooses.
Case Reference : CRA No. 1098 of 2004, Manoj Kumar Agrawal vs State of Chhattisgarh; counsel for the appellant was Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Kajal Chandra and Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocates, while the State was represented by Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General.