1 2025:CGHC:54079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1494 of 2024 1 - Prakash Kumar Bhoi S/o Late Shri Rahans Bhoi, Aged About 62 Years R/o House No. Z/15, Dubey Colony, Mova, P.S. Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Nupur Trivedi, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06.11.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.07.2024, passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 94/2023 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Special Court, “POCSO” Raipur, (C.G.),whereby the appellant has been convicted 2 and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 10 of the POCSO Act R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of which, additional R.I. for two months 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that the father of minor prosecutrix lodged a written complaint at police station Pandari against the appellant that on 25.02.2022 in between 04:00 pm to 05:00 pm, the accused on the pretext of getting chocolate took away his daughter a deserted place and he started doing forceful and obscene acts with her. After receiving complaint police station Pandari, registered Crime No. 74/2023 in offence punishable under Section 354A(1)(i) of IPC and under Section 9 and 10 POCSO Act 2012. On completion of investigation, final report/charge sheet was filed against appellant for the offence under Sections 354A(1)(i) of IPC and under Section 9 and 10 POCSO Act 2012 of Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 06.07.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Special Court, “POCSO” Raipur convicted the appellant under Section 10 of POCSO Act. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 6 witnesses. Statements of appellant (accused) was also 3 recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, two defence witnesses have been examined in his defence. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 06.07.2024 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. There is major contradiction in the statement of prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 of CrPC before police and in her Statement before the learned Trial Court during evidence. He further submits that if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, no case under Section 10 of POCSO Act is made out against the appellant. As such the prosecutrix statement is not reliable as there are many contradictions, omissions and development in her statement, which was not considered properly by the learned trial court. From the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before the police, Magistrate and the Court it reflects that she is not a reliable witness. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the age of 4 the prosecutrix was 8 years and 7 months at the time of alleged incident, but no authentic documentary proof was filed in order to show that the prosecutrix was a minor girl on the alleged date. Further trial Court also ignored the fact that nothing has been found in the medical report of victim. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. Thus, the impugned judgment is per se illegal, contrary to the evidence available on record and deserves to be set aside/ quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 8 years and 7 months on the date of incident and this fact has been duly proved birth certificate by the prosecution by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The act committed by the appellant makes him liable for conviction under Section 10 of POSCO. Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 10. In order to consider the age of prosecutrix, this Court has to examine the evidence/material placed on record by the 5 prosecution. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the Birth Certificate (Article A-1), progress report card of class Nursery-B (Article A-2) and Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-16), wherein date of birth of prosecutrix is mentioned as 16.07.2014 and which has been proved by the Principal of the School (PW-5) and father of the prosecutrix (PW-2). That they deposed and proved before the trial Court that in Birth Certificate, progress report and Dakhil Kharij, the date of birth is mentioned i.e. 16.07.2014. The Birth Certificate and dakhil-kharij register is admissible piece of evidence to determine the age of the prosecutrix. In rebuttal to the said documentary evidence, no such evidence has been presented by the appellant side, which could refute the fact of the date of birth mentioned in the said document. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court at the time of alleged incident, the victim/prosecutrix (PW-1) was aged about 8 years and 7 months at the time of incident and she was undoubtedly minor. 11. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that she had been riding her bicycle in front of her house when she took him to her residence. She mentioned that upon expressing her intention to first introduce him to her grandfather, the accused told her that her grandfather was his friend. It was further stated that she introduced the accused to her grandfather, and they indeed appeared to 6 know each other. Thereafter, the accused purportedly told her that he would buy her chocolates and took her to a nearby under-construction building where she usually rode her bicycle. It was alleged that there the accused forcibly touched her private parts, upon which she pushed him away, ran from the spot, and went home on her bicycle. She further stated that she informed her mother about the incident, and her mother decided to verify the matter. Before going, her mother informed the grandmother, who, along with the grandfather, went to look for the accused. It was alleged that upon their return, the grandparents confronted the accused and questioned him about his conduct with their granddaughter, to which the accused denied any wrongdoing. It was also mentioned that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix’s father was not present at home as he was at his ofÏce. 12. (PW-2) father of the prosecutrix in his evidence deposed that the incident took place on 25.02.2023. his daughter has told to him that the accused touched her in an inappropriate manner. 13. After close scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, it is apparent that prosecutrix (PW-1) in her evidence has stated in categorical terms that it is accused/appellant who took her away for getting chocolate and the accused forcibly touched her private parts. Nothing 7 favourable to accused/appellant could be elicited in the cross-examination of prosecutrix and, in fact, she stuck to her version that accused/ appellant had touched her inappropriate manner. Even otherwise, it is settled position of law that conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of prosecutrix. No corroboration as a matter of law needs to be insisted. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573;, the Supreme Court has observed and held that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. Further, the Supreme Court also in the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 34, it is observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difÏculty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. 15. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, It is required to be noted that in the present case, the prosecutrix has fully supported the case of the 8 prosecution. She has been consistent right from the very beginning. Nothing has been specifically pointed out why the sole testimony of the prosecutrix should not be believed. Even after thorough cross-examination, she has stood by what she has stated and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. This Court see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. The submission on behalf of the accused that no other independent witnesses have been examined and/or supported the case of the prosecution and the conviction on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be sustained is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. The conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained. 16. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly, the evidence with regard to the age of the victim which is less than 12 years and also to the depositions made by the victim as well as her father who have fully supported the statements of the victim, this Court is of the opinion that there is no doubt that the accused appellant has committed such offence with the prosecutrix. No case is made out pointing out perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and rightly recorded the conviction. No interference is called for. The appeal thus deserves to be dismissed and the same 9 is dismissed. 17. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the bail granted earlier stands cancelled. 18. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti