Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Chhattisgarh High Court
Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction; Says Victim’s Version Qualifies As ‘Sterling Witness’ Testimony
|The Court said that a ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version the Court should be able to rely upon without hesitation.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, relying primarily on the testimony of the minor victim, which the Court found to be wholly reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “The ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation or doubt as has been dealt with in the present case.”
The Court added, “When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident. Instead, the emphasis is on allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version.”
Advocate Reena Singh appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Soumya Rai represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
According to the prosecution, the victim’s father lodged a report, alleging that his daughter, aged 14 years and 3 months, went missing the previous evening. He suspected that the accused, the Appellant herein, had enticed and taken her away. A case was registered under Section 363 IPC.
During investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 CrPC. She stated that the Appellant took her to various locations, kept her with him, and committed repeated sexual acts against her will. A medical examination and forensic evidence were collected.
The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Sections 3(a) and 4(2) of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the central issue was whether the testimony of the prosecutrix was reliable and whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
On the issue of age, the Court relied on the admission register and school records. Referring to Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Court held that the date of birth in the admission register must be treated as conclusive unless proven otherwise.
The Court then noted that the testimony of the prosecutrix was natural, consistent, and withstood cross-examination. “When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident. Instead, the emphasis is on allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version”, the Court explained.
The Bench observed that the prosecutrix had clearly described the conduct of the accused, the acts committed, and the locations visited. It also considered the medical report and FSL findings, which revealed the presence of human sperm on vaginal slides and other physical evidence.
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi (2012), where it had been held that ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should be unassailable, and the Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation.
The Court rejected the Appellant's argument of false implication and held that the Trial Court had rightly placed reliance on her testimony without requiring further corroboration.
The Court held, “This Court does not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court which may warrant any interference by this Court.”
Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence awarded to the Appellant.
Cause Title: Raju Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:28095-DB)