1 CRA No. 307 of 2022 2025:CGHC:14851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 307 of 2022 [Arising out of judgment dated 03.02.2022 passed in Special Sessions Trial (POCSO) No.14/2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, 4 th FTC, Durg, Chhattisgarh.]  Chetan Lal Dilliwar @ Chetan Mandal S/o Late Bhuneshwar Dilliar, aged about 61 years R/o Village Achhoti, Shitlapara, Police Station Anda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Anda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. For State-Respondent :- Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Complainant :- Mr. Sajal Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 27/03/2025 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the sole appellant-accused, is ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.04.01 16:29:42 +0530 2 CRA No. 307 of 2022 to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 03.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 4th FTC, Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Special Sessions Trial (POCSO) No. 14/2021 by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced thereunder to go rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of ₹ 2,000/-; in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. Prosecution story:- 2. The case of the prosecution as projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that on 05.02.2021 at about 12:30 pm at village Achhoti, Police Station Anda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, when victim (PW-1) was going to her father’s shop, on the way, the appellant caught hold of her (PW-1) and took her near the alley and committed sexual assault with her. On the oral report of the victim’s father (PW- 2) FIR was registered vide Ex.P/3. Victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded vide Ex.P/1. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. 3 CRA No. 307 of 2022 Crime details form and nazri naksha were prepared vide Exs.P/5 & P/6, respectively. Dakhil khariz register (Ex.P/11C) was seized vide Ex.P/10. As per Ex.P/11C the date of birth of the victim is 24.08.2013, meaning thereby on the date of the offence i.e. 05.02.2021, the age of the victim was about 7 years 6 months. 3. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents, whereas, the appellant in defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4 CRA No. 307 of 2022 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission of the parties:- 6. Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. He would also submit that the appellant has convited only on the basis of statement of the victim, however her statement could not be relied upon to base the conviction of the appellant as there is no corroboration to her statement so she is not “sterling witness” and also the victim’s father (PW-2) and mother (PW-3) refused to undertake the medical examination of the vicitm. As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 7. Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State counsel, and Mr. Sajal Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant, would submit that the 5 CRA No. 307 of 2022 prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the Special Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence in question. They would further submit that the prompt FIR (Ex.P/3) was registered by the victim’s father (PW-2) and the statement of the victim (PW-1) is of “sterling quality” in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 1 followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar 2 . Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. Discussion and analysis:- 9. Age of the victim:- The Special Court has held the age of the victim was 7 years 5 months and 12 days on the date and time of offence in paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment relying upon the statements of the victim (PW-1), victim’s 1 (2012) 8 SCC 21 2 (2020) 3 SCC 443 6 CRA No. 307 of 2022 father (PW-2), victim’s mother (PW-3) and dakhil khariz registerd (Ex.P/11C). Victim (PW-1) while recording her Court’s statement has clearly stated that she was aged about 8 years and studying in class 3rd. Victim’s father (PW-2) in his statement before the Court has stated that the date of birth of the victim is 24.08.2013 and similarly, victim’s mother (PW-3) in her statement before the Court has stated that her daughter’s (victim) date of birth is 24.08.2013. The statements of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 corroborated by dakhil khariz register vide Ex.P/11C in which victim’s date of birth is mentioned as 24.08.2013. Even, the facts with regard to the date of the birth and the age of the victim has not been seriously challenged by the appellant and also no evidence has been brought on record on behalf of the appellant that the victim (PW-1) was major on the date and time of offence. As such, the finding of the Special Court with regard to age of the victim is a correct finding which is based on evidence available on record and I hereby affirm the said finding of the Special Court. 10. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the statement of victim inspires confidence and appears to be 7 CRA No. 307 of 2022 absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and whether it is of sterling quality as contended by learned counsel for the appellant? 11. True, it is that the conviction of the appellant is based on the statement of the victim (PW-1), therefore, at this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have 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 (supra). Their 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 8 CRA No. 307 of 2022 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, 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.” 12. Coming to the facts of the facts of the case in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments, it is quite vivid from the 9 CRA No. 307 of 2022 Court’s statement of the victim (PW-1) that on the date of offence, when she (PW-1) was going to her father’s welding shop, the appellant called her and caught hold of her and thereafter, took her in the alley which is situated behind the shop and committed sexual assault with her and when she cried, the appellant absconded from the spot. She has been subjected to some extent of cross examination, but nothing has been extracted to hold that she has falsely implicated the appellant in crime in question. Even, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC she has clearly implicated the appellant in crime in question. As such, the statement of the victim is of “sterling quality” and she is the “sterling witness” as she passed the tests of “sterling witness” as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra) followed in the matter of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar (supra). Therefore, the trial Court has rightly relied upon the statement of the victim in absence of medical and forensic evidence to base the conviction of the appellant. 13. Admittedly, on the date and time of offence, the victim was less than 12 years of age. Though, there is no medical 10 CRA No. 307 of 2022 evidence and the forensic evidence available on record, but statement of the victim (PW-1) is of “sterling quality” as she has clealry supported the case of the prosecution and prompt report [FIR (Ex.P/4)] was lodged by the victim’s father (PW-2) as he (PW-2) immediately lodged the named FIR (Ex.P/4) against the appellant on the same day i.e. 05.02.2021 at about 3:15 pm. Conclusion:- 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As a consequence, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed. 15. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, informing the appellant that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of 11 CRA No. 307 of 2022 the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit