Victim’s Statement Not Of Sterling Quality: Chhattisgarh High Court Sets Aside Conviction In POCSO Case

The Court allowed the Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, thereby acquitting the Appellant of the charges under Sections 363, 366 and 506B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay K Agrawal held, “Accordingly, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence as I have already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs that victim (PW-1) did not make any complaint about the criminal act of the appellant though she could have done that and also the statement of the victim (PW-01) is not of “sterling quality” as she fails to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness”. Though the medical evidence has partly supported the case of the prosecution, but considering the fact that the victim appears to be a consenting party which is also the case of the defence, it is of no use to the prosecution.”

Advocate Shrikant Kaushik appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Sharad Mishra represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Prosecution's case, accepted by the Trial Court, was that the Appellant abducted the minor victim from the lawful guardianship of her parents and committed intercourse with the victim on against her wishes. The victim's mother reported the matter to the police after her cousin sister informed them that the Appellant had taken the victim. The victim later stated that the Appellant threatened her, cut his hand by blade, snatched her mobile, and took her forcefully, committing sexual intercourse by threatening to kill.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court noted that the Trial Court had relied on the ‘dakhil kharij register’ to determine the victim's age as less than 18 years. However, the Head Master, who proved the register, stated in cross-examination that he had not made any entry in the register and did not know the basis for such an entry, as he was not posted as head master at that time.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s Judgment in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988), emphasising that a school register's date of birth has no evidentiary value without the testimony of the person making the entry or the person who gave the date of birth.

“Further, the forensic evidence is not supported the case of the prosecution and also the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was minor at the relevant time of offence. As such, it would be absolutely unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant for offence in question, and, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt,” the Bench further held.

“I am of the considered opinion that statement of the victim is not of sterling quality and she is not a sterling witness as she fails to pass any of the tests of sterling witness,” the Court held.

The Bench further remarked that “even as per the prosecution, the appellant had inflicted injury on himself, but the appellant was not medically examined to prove the same, for the reason best known to the prosecution. Therefore, it would be unsafe to base the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the statement of the victim.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Court is liable to be and is hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of the charges for offence in question. He is stated to be in jail from 27.03.2019 to 06.04.2020 and since 20.06.2022. I direct him to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other offence.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Lalesh @ Lala Barle v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:25465)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Shrikant Kaushik and Rishikant Mahobia

Respondent: Advocate Sharad Mishra

Click here to read/download the Judgment