1 2025:CGHC:12696 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 259 of 2023 {Arising out of judgment dated 15.12.2022 passed in Special Criminal Case No.66/2022 by the learned Special Judge (F.T.C.) Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa} Jono Uraon, S/o. Mangal Uraon, Aged About 34 Years, R/o. Mandipara, Ward No. 4, Chandrapur, P.S. Chandrapur, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Chandrapur, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board (17.03.2025) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.03.19 14:22:05 +0530 2 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge (F.T.C.) Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Special Criminal Case No.66/2022, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short “POCSO Act”) and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.10.2022, at morning 10:00 A.M. at village Chandrapur, Police Station Chandrapur, the appellant sexually assaulted the minor victim (PW-1) and thereby committed the offence. The matter was reported to the police on 25.11.2022 vide Ex.P-2, Nazari Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P-3 and the statement of the victim was recorded vide Ex.P-4. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law in which the appellant abjured his guilt 3 and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has examined only 3 witnesses. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the statement of the victim is not of sterling quality to base the conviction and there is no other evidence available on record except the statement of the victim by which she has implicated the appellant. As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been 4 able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. Admittedly, the conviction of the appellant is solely based on the testimony of the victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2), as there is no medical and forensic evidence available on record. Therefore, in absence of medical and forensic evidence, the trial Court has proceeded to convict of the appellant only on the basis of oral testimony of the victim (PW-1). As such, the statement of the victim (PW-1) should be of “sterling quality” to base the conviction of the appellant. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 1 has observed that who can be said to be a “sterling witness” and which has been recently followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar 2 . Their 1 (2012) 8 SCC 21 2 (2020) 2 S.C.R. 798 5 Lordship of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) have held in paragraph No.22 as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre 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 accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness 6 qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, can it 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.” 9. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the statement of victim inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and whether it is of sterling quality? 10. The date of incident is 26.10.2022, which has been informed by elder sister of the victim (PW-4) to her mother (PW-2) after a delay of five days and thereafter, PW-2 reported the matter to the police vide Ex.P-1 on 25.11.2022 approximately with a delay of one month. However, in para 8, mother of the victim has stated that delay has been caused on account of consultation with the family. Once the matter has been informed though with a delay of 5 days by sister of victim (PW-4) to mother of victim (PW-2), the matter ought to have 7 been reported promptly. As such, there is no explanation for causing delay in reporting the matter, except consultation with the family members. Therefore, delay of one month in reporting the matter stands unexplained. Furthermore, the victim (PW-1) also states in para 4 of her statement that she stating as tutored by her mother and furthermore, the mother of the victim (PW-2) states that she reported the matter at the instance of Salma Khan (PW-7), if she could not have advised her, she could not have reported the matter to the police. PW-2 also states in para 14 that she and appellant both are same Gotra and appellant is her husband’s brother. She also admits that the house of appellant is small room, there is no toilet facility and besides the appellant’s house, his brother’s house is also situated and in front of appellant’s house, there is an open place. Furthermore, she has also stated that the appellant’s wife Fulbai Uraon (DW-1) is differently abled woman and she is confined to the home. However, Fulbai (DW-1), wife of appellant, has been examined in which she has stated that she is physically disabled woman, therefore, she used to remain in the house and on the date of offence, she was there in the house and the appellant has only scolded the victim to stop burning firecracker and no incident has 8 taken place. At that time, mother & father of the victim both were present and Laxman, Nammi and other persons were also present and that has not been controverted in the cross examination made on behalf of the prosecution that she was also present in the house on the date of offence. More particularly, wife of appellant (DW-1) is differently abled woman and has also been admitted by mother of the victim (PW-2) and father of the victim (PW-5) that her activities is confined to the home and suggestion has also been made with regard to previous enmity with the appellant’s family and victim’s family. Laxman Uraon (DW-3) has also stated that the appellant has only asked the victim not to burn firecrackers. As such, from the statement of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that though the victim’s mother has been informed about the incident after five days of the incident but she did not report the matter to the police and after delay of one month, the statement of the victim (PW-1) has been recorded, which appears to be tutored witness and furthermore the appellant’s wife (DW-1) is differently abled woman and she was present in the house and she has clearly stated that on the date of offence, the appellant has only asked the victim not to burn firecrackers. Furthermore, the place of incident is an 9 open place in front of house of the appellant and it is a dense locality as per the statement of mother of the victim (PW-2) and appellant’s family and victim’s family both are related to each other. As such, the statement of the victim (PW-1) is not of sterling quality only on the basis of which the conviction can be based. Therefore, the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, as victim fails to pass any of the tests of “sterling witness” as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) and there is no forensic and medical evidence. In that view of the matter, it would be absolutely risky to maintain the conviction of the appellant and, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge is hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other offence. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for 10 necessary information and action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok