1 2025:CGHC:43952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 568 of 2017 Mukesh Mishra S/o Sukhchain Mishra, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Ghurehta, Mahuganj, District Reva, Madhya Pradesh. Temporary Address Near Passport Office, Police Station D.D. Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station D.D. Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. AG Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 29/08/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17/11/2016 passed in Special Criminal No. 04/2013 by the VII RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.01 18:09:17 +0530 2 Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation. 2. Facts of the case are that on 09.05.2013, the prosecutrix (PW-2), who was then a minor student studying in Class VII, approached Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, and lodged an oral report. It was alleged that on the fateful day i.e. on 29.4.2013, at about 3:00 p.m., she was sitting in her family shop after opening it in the usual course of routine, when the accused Mukesh Mishra came there and demanded gutkha. Acting upon it, she went inside the shop to take out the gutkha and, while handing it over, the accused suddenly misbehaved with her by pressing her mouth, holding her hands and arms, and pressing her chest. It was further alleged that the accused also asked her to accompany him outside with an intention of subjecting her to sexual exploitation. When she resisted and refused to comply, the accused did not desist from his act, but on her raising loud cries, he fled from the spot. Immediately thereafter, her family members arrived at the shop, to whom she narrated the incident. The matter was then reported to the police, and on the basis of her complaint, Crime No. 105/13 was registered against the accused at Police Station D.D. Nagar. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, and vide order dated 06.08.2013, the case was 3 committed and transferred to the Court of Sessions for trial. The accused was thereafter charged for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The charges were read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, including the prosecutrix herself, whereas the defence chose not to adduce any evidence in support of its case. However, statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 3. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 17/11/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Owing to non-execution of more than dozen bailable warrants, the non-bailable warrant was issued, which is apparent from the order sheet dated 16/6/2025 and thereafter, by order dated 30/07/2025, this Court directed issuance of a permanent non-bailable warrant of arrest against the appellant through the Superintendent of Police concerned. In the same order, the Secretary, High Court Legal Aid Committee, was instructed to immediately appoint an advocate to represent the appellant. Pursuant thereto, Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel, entered appearance on behalf of the appellant and advanced arguments 4 in the matter today. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of presumption and assumption, without there being any cogent or reliable evidence. It is urged that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 29.04.2013, whereas the First Information Report came to be lodged only on 09.05.2013, i.e., after an unexplained delay of about ten days. Although the delay occurred has been explained as her parents were searching for the accused, such an explanation appears vague and unsatisfactory. Learned counsel would further submit that apart from the solitary statement of the prosecutrix, which also suffers from embellishments and exaggeration, there is no independent corroboration forthcoming from the material witnesses. In these circumstances, it is contended, the prosecution story becomes doubtful, and the appellant deserves the benefit of such doubt. 6. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants and would submit that the conviction of the appellant is is well merited. The prosecution has duly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the impugned order is just and proper and requires no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Since it is undisputed that the prosecutrix (PW-1) was a major on the date of the incident, as before the trial Court the prosecution failed to 5 establish the fact that on the date of incident she was below 18 years of age and hence the appellant has ben acquitted from the said charge, the Court must now decide the central issue: whether the appellant is guilty of the alleged offence under Section 354 IPC. 9. PW1-, mother of the prosecutrix, stated that about three to four years prior to her deposition, when her minor daughter (Prosecutrix), then aged about 12 years, was sitting at their grocery shop in D.D. Nagar, the accused Mukesh Mishra came to purchase gutkha and, after receiving it, caught hold of hand of her daughter (victim), pressed her mouth and tried to pull her outside, but on raising cries by her daughter, this witness, her husband and neighbours rushed out, whereupon the accused fled from the spot; she then took the victim to the police station and lodged the report. 10. 10. The Prosecutrix (PW2) has deposed that on the date of incident, the accused came to the shop and purchased Dabangg Gutka. She was sitting inside the shop when, after standing outside for about five to ten minutes, the accused caught hold of her hand, pressed her mouth, and attempted to pull her towards himself. She managed to free herself and raised an alarm by shouting “Papa.” Hearing her cries, her father rushed out of the house and tried to apprehend the accused, but he escaped on his scooter. On hearing her cries, her aunt, her mother, and her maternal aunt also came to the spot. In response to such questioning, the witness admitted that at the time of the incident, the accused had pulled her by the arms and 6 pressed her breasts. She also admitted that the accused was attempting to drag her out of the shop with an intention to outrage her modesty. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that at the time of the incident no other person was present nearby. She further admitted that she did not know the accused personally before the incident, though he had once visited the shop earlier to purchase goods. She stated that she did not know him by name at that time but was familiar with his face. 11. PW3- Father of the Prosecutrix has deposed that the incident took place about a year earlier in the grocery shop situated in his house at DD Nagar, at around 2:00 to 3:00 in the afternoon. At that time, the victim was sitting in the shop while he and his family members were inside the house having their meal. Suddenly, he heard the victim screaming, “Papa, save me.” On hearing the voice, he immediately ran outside and saw that the accused had covered the victim’s mouth and was dragging her away. When he tried to catch the accused, the accused attempted to flee. The witness caught hold of the accused’s shirt from behind, but he freed himself and escaped in his vehicle. When he asked the victim about the incident, she told him that the accused had been dragging her by holding her mouth and had behaved improperly with her. The witness further stated that thereafter, he went with the victim to the police station and lodged a report. The police recorded his statement. The victim also informed that the accused had pressed her chest while holding her arms and was pulling her outside with the 7 intention of committing wrongful acts. 12. 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 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 8 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 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.” 13. Also, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, 1990 SCC 550 held as under:- “A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and 9 caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’) similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is own to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” 14. Reverting to the facts of the present case, as per the evidence of the mother (PW1), the Prosecutrix (PW2) and her father (PW3), it is 10 crystal clear that the appellant, on the date of incident while founding the Prosecutrix alone at the shot, caught hold the hands of her, closed her mouth and pressed her chest. Nothing has been brought on by the prosecution in their cross-examination. 15. The law is well settled that the prosecutrix is a Victim of, and not an accomplice in, a sex offence and there is no provision in the Evidence Act requiring corroboration in material particulars of the evidence of the prosecutrix as is in the case of evidence of accomplice. (See: Ganga Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 7SCC 178) 16. Considering the entire evidence available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be safe for this Court to hold that the appellant has committed the crime against the Prosecutrix. 17. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the conviction as awarded by the trial Court to the appellant is hereby upheld. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 19. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining sentence. 20. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a 11 copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his 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. 21. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the Trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri