1 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 2025:CGHC:45235-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1072 of 2025 Sanat Kumar Verma S/o Kuleshwar Verma Aged About 48 Years R/o Tarashiv, P.S. Tilda Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tilda Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. B. L. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 04/09/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24/04/2025 passed in Special RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.08 14:55:41 +0530 2 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 Criminal Case (under POCSO) No. 11/2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 363 (thrice) of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years (thrice) with fine of Rs. 200/- (thrice) with default stipulation. U/s 377 (thrice) of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years (thrice) with fine of Rs. 200/- (thrice) with default stipulation. U/s 5 (ड)/6 (thrice) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years (thrice) with fine of Rs. 200/- (thrice) with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the cases on 15/11/2020 at about 3:00 pm, the accused/appellant lured three minor victims i.e. PW1- Kha, PW2- Ga & PW3- Ka and took them on his motorcycle towards the agricultural field of village Chatond and put his private part in the mouth of all the minor victims. Subsequently, when the family members of the victims came to know the said fact, the written report was lodged vide Ex.P/3. Based on the said report, crime No. 361/2020 under Section 377 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was registered vide FIR (Ex.P/18). 3 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 During the course of investigation, after obtaining the consent, the Victims were medically examined vide Ex.P/22, 23 & 24. Their statements were recorded subsequently. Spot map (Ex.P/6) was prepared. In order to ascertain the age of the victims, their progress reports i.e. Article-A, B & C were seized vide Ex.P/9, 10 & 11. Their statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C was recorded. Further, in investigation, Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P/12C, 13/C & 14/C) were seized in respect of the victims. The accused was arrested, and an arrest memorandum (Ex. P-31) was prepared. The seized articles were forwarded through the Superintendent of Police to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, along with forwarding memo (Ex. P-33), from which acknowledgment (Ex. P-34) was received. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 377 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 363, 377 IPC and Section 5(ड)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The charges were read over and explained to him, but he denied them and sought trial. During his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the accused claimed innocence and did not produce any defense evidence. On behalf of the prosecution, testimonies were recorded from the victim children i.e. PW1- Kha, PW2- Ga & PW3- Ka as also of PW7 who is father of PW1, PW5 who is father of PW2, whereas PW4 who is elder father of PW2 and PW8 who is the father of PW3 and Shiv Kumar Verma, Incharge Head Master (PW-6), Investigating 4 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 Officer Raj Bhushan Singh (PW-9), Patwari Jeevan Lal Verma (PW- 10), and Dr. H.L. Jangde (PW-11). H.L. Jangde (PW-11). The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 24/04/2025 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has been maliciously and falsely implicated in the instant case. It is urged that the complaint itself is bereft of any cogent reason and appears to have been instituted solely on concocted and baseless allegations. The prosecution witnesses, upon whose testimony the entire case rests, have made statements replete with material contradictions and glaring omissions, thereby rendering their depositions wholly unreliable. It is further submitted that the said witnesses are inimically disposed and are, in fact, interested witnesses, whose evidence cannot be safely acted upon without independent corroboration. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that the testimonies of the victims have remained consistent right from the initial stage, when they narrated the incident to their respective parents. Thus, there exists sufficient material on record, and the conviction of the appellant is just and proper. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the 5 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 record with utmost circumspection. 6. The first question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the victims were minors on the date of the incident. 7. The victim (PW-3, Ka) in his deposition has stated that although he does not remember his exact date of birth, he is presently studying in Class VI. PW8- father of the victim (PW3- ka) has stated that the said victim was aged about 10 years at the time of incident. 8. As per the Article- A, B & C, which are the progress report of the victims PW1- Kha, PW2- Ga and PW3- Ka, respectively, their age are 10, 9 & 7 years, respectively. 9. Further, for determining the age of the victims, Sub-Inspector Rajbhushan Singh (PW-9) obtained the admission registers and marksheets from PW-6 and the victims’ fathers. The records reveal that victim (PW3- Ka) was born on 27.10.2011, victim (PW1-Kha) on 20.05.2013, and victim (PW2- Ga) on 06.07.2010. These dates are consistently reflected in the admission registers as well as the school marksheets, and remain unchallenged in evidence. 10. In view of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, including the admission registers, progress reports, and the testimony of the parents, it stands established that victim PW-3 Ka was born on 27.10.2011, victim PW-1 Kha on 20.05.2013, and victim PW-2 Ga on 06.07.2010. On the date of the incident, all the victims were much below 18 years of age and thus clearly minors within the meaning of 6 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 law. 11. The next question that arises is whether the appellant committed the offences for which he has been charge-sheeted.” 12. Victim (PW1-Kha) deposed that he knew the accused Sanat, who resided in village Tarashiv and was related to his aunt. He stated that on the date of the incident, he along with his friend (other victims) had gone near Vinod’s shop to purchase firecrackers, when the accused Sanat arrived on a two-wheeler motorcycle (“phatphati”) and proposed to go to village Chhataud to bring a rooster. The accused drove the vehicle, after seated them. He further deposed that the accused took them to Lohari Khar in village Chhataud, where he committed obscene acts by repeatedly inserting his private part into his mouth about five times and also into the mouth of other victim. He further deposed that when he resisted, the accused threatened him. According to the witness, they remained there till evening, after which the accused took them on the motorcycle to Puseiya Talab and left them there. This witness further stated that after the accused left them near Puseiya Talab, he and his companion returned home on foot. He narrated the incident to Rishi, who in turn informed Bantha, and he also disclosed it to Umesh, who thereafter informed his father. 13. Victim (PW2- Ga) has deposed that on the date of incident, he along with two other victim boys was bursting crackers near Vinod’s shop. At that time, the accused came on his motorcycle and told them that he had to go to buy a chicken. Instead of taking them to buy the chicken, 7 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 the accused took them near the Lohari Ghat by the pond and committed obscene acts with them. When questioned as to what obscene acts were committed, he stated that the accused put his private part into their mouths one after another and forced them to suck it. When they refused, the accused threatened them by saying that he would leave them there and go away. Thereafter, the accused left them near the Kusaiya pond. He further stated that he does not remember how many times the accused forced his private part into their mouths. After returning home, he narrated the incident to his mother. 14. Victim (PW-3 Ka) deposed that on the date of the incident, his maternal uncle had a quarrel with the accused Sanat, as there had been a fight between the son of his uncle and the son of the accused. Owing to this dispute, his uncle and the accused Sanat quarreled with each other. He further stated that on account of the said quarrel, his uncle lodged a report against the accused at the police station. At the time of the quarrel, he was also present, and the police had enquired from him regarding the incident and recorded his statement. He further deposed that on the day of the incident, while he was playing with his two friends (who are also victim boys), the son of the accused came there and started a quarrel with them. Thereafter, he along with his two friends went to call the father of another victim boy. Later, he, his uncle, his two friends, and the father of one of the victim boys went to the police station to lodge a complaint about the incident, where the police again questioned him. 8 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 He further stated that about two years ago, on the day of Govardhan Puja, he along with his two friends (victim boys) was bursting crackers near the temple, when the accused Sanat Kumar Verma came there on his motorcycle and told them that they had to go to Chhataud to bring a chicken. Though they were unwilling to go, the accused insisted, saying that the chicken would have to be caught. He further deposed that all three of them then sat on the motorcycle with the accused, but instead of taking them towards Chhataud village, the accused took them to a deserted field. In that secluded place, the accused opened his trouser and exposed his private part. He further deposed that the accused attempted to insert his private part into his mouth and also attempted the same with the mouths of his two friends. 15. From the evidence brought on record, it clearly emerges that the role of the accused, the depositions of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 form a consistent and reliable chain of evidence. PW-1 narrated that the accused Sanat, known to him, enticed the children on the pretext of fetching a rooster from Chhataud, took them instead to Lohari Khar, and there committed repeated acts of sexual assault by forcing his private part into their mouths, threatening them when they resisted, and finally abandoning them near Puseiya Talab. PW-2 corroborated this account in all material particulars, testifying that the accused forcibly inserted his private part into their mouths one after another and intimidated them into silence, which he promptly disclosed to his mother on returning home. PW-3 also confirmed that on Govardhan 9 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 Puja, while he and his friends were bursting crackers, the accused compelled them to accompany him on his motorcycle, drove them to a deserted field instead of Chhataud, exposed his private part, and attempted to insert it into their mouths. The core facts deposed by all three victims are uniform, natural, and mutually corroborative. 16. The evidence of these child witnesses is unshaken in cross- examination, supported by immediate disclosures to parents and relatives, and is wholly consistent with the prosecution case. Minor discrepancies, if any, are natural given their tender age and traumatic experience, but do not detract from the truth of their testimony. It is trite law that the sole testimony of a child victim, if found credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction; here, there are three such testimonies reinforcing each other and leaving no room for doubt. 17. After the incident, the victims went to their respective houses and narrated the occurrence to their parents, who thereafter approached the police and lodged a written report, leading to the prompt registration of the FIR. The immediate action taken by the parents of the victims lends credibility to the narration of the victims." 18. The depositions of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, who are the victims as also the evidence of PW7, PW5, PW4 & PW8 who are the respective/guardians of the victims, are natural, detailed, and corroborate each other in substance. Minor variations are natural given their tender age and the trauma endured, but these do not shake the core of the prosecution case. Their testimonies are further corroborated 10 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 by contemporaneous disclosure to parents and relatives, followed by prompt reporting to the police. 19. It has also become almost settled position of law that conviction can be based on the solitary statement of victim, provided same inspires confidence of the court. 20. In cases under the POCSO Act, a ‘sterling’ witness refers to a witness whose testimony is of high quality on caliber to the extent that the Court can accept their version of events without requiring additional corroboration. The Supreme Court in ‘n’ numbers of cases, has observed that the testimony of a victim can be sufficient for conviction, if it is trustworthy and of sterling quality. 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (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 11 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 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 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 recise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other 12 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 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.” 22. In a very recent judgment the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Sushil Kumar Tiwari v Hare Ram Sah & Ors. (CrA No.../2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.18377 of 2024 decided on 1-9-2025) held thus at para 36 : “36. Before closing, we deem it fit to observe that noticeably, the principle of beyond reasonable doubt has been misunderstood to mean any and every doubt in the case of the prosecution. Often, we come across cases wherein loose acquittals are recorded on the basis of minor inconsistencies, contradictions and deficiencies, by elevating them to the standard of reasonable doubts. A reasonable doubt is one that renders the version of the prosecution as improbable, and leads the Court to believe in the existence and probability of an alternate version of the facts. It is a serious doubt which must be backed by reason. The underlying foundation of the principle of beyond reasonable doubt is that no innocent should face punishment for a crime that he has not done. But a flipside of the same, of which we are conscious, is that at times, 13 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 owing to a mis-application of this principle, actual culprits manage to find their way out of the clutches of law. Such misapplication of this principle, resulting into culprits walking free by taking benefit of doubt, is equally dangerous for the society. Every instance of acquittal of an actual culprit revolt against the sense of security of the society and acts as a blot on the criminal justice system. Therefore, not only should no innocent face punishment for something that he has not done, but equally, no culprit should manage an acquittal on the basis of unreasonable doubts and misapplication of procedure” 23. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and upon cumulative analysis of the statements of the witnesses and the testimony of the victim, it has been established by the prosecution that the victims were minor below 12 years of age at the time of alleged incident; Thus, having aforesaid materials on record, compels us to hold that prosecution has proved on record beyond reasonable doubt, that on the date of incident, the accused knowingly the victims are minor committed the unnatural act with them. Thus, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire facts of the case in its true perspective and justifiably convicted the accused under the aforementioned sections. 24. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record, this Court 14 CRA No. 1072 of 2025 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 trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant/accused is currently in jail. He shall remain in custody to undergo and serve the remaining period of his sentence, as imposed by the Court. 25. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail sentence 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 High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 26. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/-Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul