1 2025:CGHC:59560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 388 of 2016 Koushal Sahu S/o Krishna Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Balmiki Atal Aawas, Qr. No. 29, 15 Block, Chowki C. S. E. B. Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Statio Kotwali, Chowki C. S. E. B. District Korba Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Ms. K. Radhik, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 08.12.2025 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 29.02.2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 40/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Korba, C.G. whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.10 10:20:07 +0530 2 under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 454 of the IPC Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulations. U/s 354 of IPC Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulations. U/s 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulations. Fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- has been deposited on 29.02.2016 All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the minor victim studies in the eighth grade and lives with her parents and brother. On September 9, 2015, her parents went to work as laborers, and she had gone to ’ School at 9:30 AM. She returned from school at 1:00 PM. At that time, the accused, Kaushal, who lived next door, entered the house and said that her aunt had arrived, to which the victim replied that she would not go. Then, seeing the victim alone, the accused, with the intention of molesting her, grabbed her arm, kissed her cheek, and tried to remove her knicker. The victim cried out, and her younger brother came to the spot. Seeing him, the accused fled. Thereafter, the victim called her parents and informed them of the incident. The matter was reported to the CSEB police outpost, and a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the accused under Crime No. 373/2015 at Mahakasedi Police Station, Kotwali Korba. 3 3. On the basis of the said report, offence was registered against the appellant. Statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed the charges under Section 454, 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. To prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 29.02.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is arbitrary, perverse, and unsustainable in law. The conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellant are illegal and void. It is submitted that the learned trial court committed a grave error by ignoring the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant by cogent and reliable evidence. The appellant was erroneously convicted under Sections 454 and 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act without any legally admissible evidence. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the alleged crime, and the allegations made against the appellant are general, vague, and omnibus in nature. 4 The impugned judgment is wholly baseless, as none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution story, and no foundation was laid by the prosecution to substantiate its claims. The learned trial court erred in appreciating the evidence, ignoring the mutual contradictions and omissions present in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the conviction and sentences of the appellant are without any factual or legal basis and are liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Now, the first question for consideration would be what was the age of the prosecutrix (PW1) at the time of alleged incident? 9. The prosecutrix (PW-1) in her statement has deposed that at the time of the incident, her date of birth is 04.04.2002 and she was studying in Class 8. This statement was not effectively rebutted during her cross-examination. The mother of the prosecutrix (PW-5) corroborated her daughter’s statement, categorically stating that her daughter was 13 years old and studying in Class 8th at the relevant time. Similarly, the father (PW-6) deposed that his daughter was studying in Class 8 and her date of birth is 04.04.2002. 5 10. Further, PW-4, Smt. C. Ekka, who is the Headmaster of the Primary School, Gorwaghat, deposed that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded as 04.04.2002 in the Dakil Kharij Register, maintained at the time of her admission in Class 3. Additionally, the mark sheet of Class 6, seized as Article ‘A’, also records the date of birth as 04.04.2002. Considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court rightly concluded that at the time of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age, I hereby affirm the said finding of the Trial Court, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. 11. With regard to the incident the prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed that the incident occurred on 09.09.2015 at about 1:00 PM, when she was at home and her younger brother was playing outside, with no other person present. She stated that the accused, Kaushal Sahu, came to her house and asked her to accompany him to his residence, which she refused. She further stated that the accused then behaved inappropriately by grabbing her, kissing her on the cheek, and putting his hand inside her knicker. On raising alarm, her younger brother arrived, upon which the accused fled from the spot. She further stated that thereafter she informed them about the incident. In cross-examination, the victim admitted that she used to address the accused as “mama” and his wife as “mami,” and that she frequently visited their house and played with the accused’s children, who also visited her home. She stated that prior to the 6 incident the accused had never behaved improperly with her and often came to her house even in the absence of her parents. She further stated that the accused’s wife had gone to her parental home after a quarrel, and the accused sometimes asked the victim to persuade his wife not to fight. The victim confirmed that she resided in an Atal Awas house with one room, a kitchen and an external bathroom, and that on the date of the incident her younger brother was playing alone in a distant playground. She admitted that she did not inform her parents or the police over phone about the incident and that if the police recorded otherwise, it was incorrect. She stated that on the date of occurrence the accused repeatedly told her that her “mami” had arrived and insisted that she accompany him, due to which she felt frightened and hid in the bathroom, and the accused left when her brother arrived. She denied the suggestion that she had lodged a false report at the instance of her mother and asserted that she only narrated the incident that actually took place. 12. PW-10 brother of the victim deposed that he knew the accused. He further stated that he could not recall the exact date of the incident. He stated that around 1:00 PM, when his sister returned home from school, he asked her to serve food then went outside to play. After some time, he heard his sister crying loudly, and on entering the house, he saw the accused holding her hand. On seeing him, the accused immediately left her and ran away. His sister then called their mother on the phone and informed her about the incident. He further stated that on the date of the incident, both his parents had 7 gone to work. 13. PW-2, the mother of the prosecutrix, deposed that her daughter on 09.09.2015, while she and her husband were at work, victim called her over the phone and was crying. When she asked the reason, the child was initially unable to speak, but on repeated questioning, after she and her husband returned home, victim disclosed that the accused had behaved improperly with her. She informed them that the accused had kissed her, touched her hand and cheek, and chased her inside the house. From the perusal of the statements it is clear that at the time of the incident, the victim was alone in the house. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 8 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 9 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.” 17. Having considered the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) along with the corroborating testimonies of PW-10 and PW-2, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The testimony of the prosecutrix is natural, consistent, and inspires confidence. Her version of the incident that the accused entered the house, attempted to remove her knicker, kissed her, and 10 fled upon the arrival of her younger brother remains unshaken despite lengthy cross-examination. The defence has not been able to elicit any material contradiction, omission, or improvement that would discredit her testimony. Her evidence is duly corroborated by PW-10, who categorically stated that he saw the accused holding the prosecutrix’s hand and that the accused fled on seeing him. The statement of PW-2 further supports the immediate disclosure of the incident. Minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence do not go to the root of the prosecution case and are natural in the testimony of a child witness. The prosecution has successfully established that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident, and the conduct of the accused clearly satisfies the ingredients of Sections 454 and 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The trial Court has rightly relied upon trustworthy oral and documentary evidence and committed no illegality or perversity in convicting the appellant. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal, being devoid of substance, stands dismissed. 18. The accused is reported to be 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 period of sentence. 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 11 assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 19. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti