1 2025:CGHC:14349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1007 of 2023 Anandram Pisda S/o Late Dwaruram Pisda Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Dhorrithema, P. S. Daundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Daundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 25/03/2025 1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012), Balod, District Balod in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No.79/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2012 (hereinafter called as “POCSO”) (two counts) and sentenced to undergo RI for 3-3 years and fine of Rs.2,000-2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2-2 months. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant/complainant, Rani Koshale, is the grandmother of the victim. On 16.09.2020, at 3:30 P.M., the victim's grandmother filed a written application at Daundi Police Station to register a report against the accused. According to the application, on 14.09.2020, at around 3:00 P.M., a woman named Chandrika Salam came to the victim's grandmother's house and informed her that the victim and her friends were discussing how the school's headmaster was not a good person. When the grandmother asked the victim and her friends about this, they revealed that the headmaster had been making them remove their lower garments, touching their private parts, and making obscene comments. 3. Further investigation revealed that the headmaster had been engaging in this behavior for several years. When the parents of the affected girls confronted the headmaster, he admitted to his actions, saying that he knows why they have come. Thereafter, the police subsequently registered a case against the accused, and after completing the investigation, they filed a charge-sheet on 23.09.2020. 4. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant under Sections 354(क)(I)(iv) of the IPC (two counts), 354(ख) of the IPC 3 (two counts) and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act (two counts) which the appellant abjured and pleaded innocence. 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-12) and in the defence of appellant Dr. G.S. Thakur (DW-1) has been examined. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the age of the victim, which is not proved, hence the alleged offence has not been made out against the appellant. He further submits that there is no medical evidence to prove that the offence of forcible sexual intercourse was committed upon the victim and there is due explanation has been given by the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC, which was nto considered by the trial Court. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and 4 submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the victims (PW-1, 2, 3, 4, 5) have clearly deposed the conduct of the appellant in their Court statement and the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the testimony of the victim deserves acceptance and whether the prosecution has established the case of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 10. It is pertinent to observe that the question whether conviction of the appellant can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in a catena of judgments and has held that the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable can be the sole ground for convicting the appellant and that the creditworthy testimony of the victim in cases of such nature deserves acceptance. 11. Insofar as, age of the victims (PW-1 and 2) on the date of the commission of the offence are concerned, they were admittedly 8 years old at the time of the unsavory incident. 5 12. Aneshwar Kumar Kanwar (PW-4), Assistant Teacher stated that he has been working as an Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Uzhre, Tehsil Dhaundhi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh since 2009, and as In-Charge Headmaster since 2020. On September 17, 2020, he received a notice from Daundi Police Station regarding the submission of the admission register for victims A and B, which is Ex. P-01, bearing his signature from A to A. He has brought the original admission register number 03 regarding the age of victims A and B with him. After verifying the original admission register number 03 with the certified copy attached to the case, it was found to be correct. The original admission register number 03 is marked as Articles A-C. According to the admission register 03, the date of birth of victim A is April 20, 2012. Victim A was admitted to Class 1 on June 19, 2018 as mentioned in Srl. No.627. Similarly, according to the admission register number 03, the date of birth of victim B is May 13, 2012. Victim B was admitted to Class 1 on June 18, 2018 mentioned in Srl. No.619. 13. Victim A (PW-1) and victim B (PW-2) corroborate the allegations, stating that the incident occurred 4-5 months ago. The accused had called them to Khayati's house to study. Khayati is their friend, whose father's name is Babulal. They, along with Kavita, the first victim, and witness F, had gone to the accused's house to study. The accused had made them remove their undergarments and looked at their private parts. He also asked obscene question 6 about her mother. At that time, they did not say anything, but they had asked the accused not to do such things. However, the accused did not listen. The first victim, along with victims A and B, and witnesses D, E, and F, were discussing the incident when witness C, who is the mother of their friend, overheard them. They informed her about the entire incident, and witness C then told her mother-in-law about it. Similarly, prosecution witnesses D, E, and F stated that victims A and B had informed them about the incident. Victims A and B told them that the accused would remove their undergarments, touch their private parts with his thumb, look at their buttocks, and pressed their breasts. Witness C is their aunt (chachi), who had overheard them talking about the incident. When she asked them, they told her about the incident. 14. Victim D (PW-3) stated that victims A and B had told her that the accused had pressed the breasts of both of them. Witness C is her aunt who had heard them talking about the incident. When she asked, she had told witness C about the incident. The accused had asked her obscene questions about their parents, when she was studying in class 3. The accused had opened her panties and pressed private part with his thumb. She had not told this to anyone because when she said that she would tell about the incident, the accused had beaten her up. 15. Victim E (PW-4) stated that at the time of the incident she was studying in class 3 in the Government Primary School, Urjhe. The 7 incident occurred 6 months ago. The accused had lifted the clothes of victims A and B and pressed their private parts with his thumb and had also pressed the breasts of both of them. Witness C is the aunt (chachi) of witness D who had heard them talking about the incident. When she asked them, they told her about the incident. The accused had opened their undergarment and seen the private part. She did not tell this to anybody at that time because she was scared of the accused. 16. Victim F (PW-5) stated that on the call of the accused, they had gone to study in the house of Babulal Kodopi. The accused used to open the undergarments of the victim A and B and look at their private parts and press it with his thumb and also pressed the breasts of both of them, then they tried to stop the accused but the accused did not listen. The accused had said obscene things about her mother. She had told her elder mother and mother about the incident, but she did not tell immediately because she was scared. 17. Smt. Chandrika Salam (PW-6) stated that the incident occurred almost a year ago. On the day of the incident, she was on her way to wash clothes and dispose of cow dung around 3 P.M.. Meanwhile, victims A, B, and witnesses D and E were bathing in the pond and discussing how Pisda Sir, a man from their village, would often pick up their clothes and stare at them. They also mentioned that Pisda Ser would ask them inappropriate questions 8 about their parents. She overheard them talking about this. When she questioned the girls, they repeated the same things. She informed the grandmother of victim A and other villagers about the incident. The police also questioned her and recorded her statement. The victims didn't share any further information with her. 18. Grandmother of victim A (PW-9), who had lodged the First Information Report on 16.09.2020, she stated that when the victim A was studying in class 3, a woman named Chandrika from my village came to my house and told me that the victim was talking to her friends about how the accused would lift up her skirt and touch her private parts. She then questioned the victim A about this, and she told her that when she used to go to the accused's house to study, he would lift up her skirt and touch her private parts. The victim A also told her that the accused would open her shirt and look at her breasts, and then he would ask obscene questions about their grandmother and grandfather. After the victim told her this, several women from our village, including herself, went to the accused's house and confronted him about his actions. The accused admitted to what he had done, thereafter, a meeting was then held in the village, attended by the victims, the accused, and other villagers. During the meeting, the victims were asked about the incident, and they recounted what had happened. The accused was also questioned, and he admitted to his wrongdoing. 9 19. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, 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. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the 10 accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 20. Considering the statement of the victims (PW-1, 2, 3, 4, 5) who have specifically stated the act of the present appellant, statement of her grandmother (PW-9), statement of Smt. Chandrika Salam (PW-6), who has informed about the alleged incident to (PW-9), the material available on record and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep @ Deenu (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the said findings. 21. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the Special Judge to the appellant is 11 hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 22. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith for serving remaining part of his sentence as ordered by the trial Court, failing which, he shall be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence. 23. Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. 24. Registry is also directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil