The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the conviction can be based on testimony of the victim, who is a minor, supported by other corroborative piece of evidence led by the prosecution.

The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) against the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) by which the accused was convicted.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, while considering the reliability of the statement of the victim has held that “minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault was enough for conviction and does not require corroboration unless there were compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The Court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience.”

Advocate Rishi Rahul Soni appeared for the Appellant/Accused while Advocate (Panel Lawyer) Sakib Ahmad appeared for the Respondent/State.

Facts of the Case

As per the prosecution case, in 2020, the father of the victim lodged a written Complaint to the Police Station that his daughter was abducted by a person wearing a ‘Khaki’ uniform, claiming to be a Police Officer, while the victim was playing with her friends near a primary school. Resultantly, an FIR was registered invoking Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The investigation led to the recovery of the victim from the custody of the Appellant-accused, along with the motorcycle and ‘Khaki’ uniform, which was used in the crime.

During the investigation, the birth certificate of the victim was seized, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and a medical examination was conducted. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 419, 363, 365, and 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him. Being aggrieved by his conviction, he approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidences of the victim (PW-1), father of the victim (PW-2) and birth certificate of the victim (Ex.P/12) and also as per evidence of Sangeeta Bhagat (PW-4) and Arvind Patnayak (PW-5), it is quite clear from the documentary and oral evidence presented by the prosecution on record and its analysis that the accused/appellant abducted the victim from her lawful guardianship and she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the accused/appellant.”

The Court added that the prosecution was successful in proving that on the date of the incident the victim was minor i.e., below the age of 12 years and the accused on the said date, time, and place, committed penetrative sexual assault with her and hence, the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused.

“Consequently, the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court under Sections 419, 363 and 365 of the IPC is hereby upheld. So far as the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is concerned, the same is also upheld, however, this Court is of the view that the sentence of life imprisonment which would mean imprisonment for rest of the natural life, is too harsh and instead, the same is converted to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. The imposition of fine amount and the default sentence is upheld”, it further directed.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal, upheld the conviction, and directed the accused to serve out the sentence as modified.

Cause Title- Ajeet Singh Porte v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:2735-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment