1 / 10 CRA No. 327 of 2025 2025:CGHC:33570-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 327 of 2025 Alok Toppo S/o Preit Toppo Aged About 23 Years Police Station - Kansabel, District- Jaspur (C.G.), Present Address- Risdi Pipeeline Dhingapur Road, Outpost Rampur, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Rampur, Police Station Kotwali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, J 17/07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/respondent. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.18 11:54:59 +0530 2 / 10 CRA No. 327 of 2025 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh in Special Case (POCSO) No.32/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 4 of the POCSO Act Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code provides for an alternative punishment to that provided under this Section U/s 376 (3) of IPC R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.3,000/-, with default stipulation. U/s 363 of IPC R.I. for 03 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation. U/s 366 of IPC R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that mother of the prosecutrix had submitted a written complaint in Chowki- Rampur, Police Station Kotwali, Dist- Korba stating therein that on 30.11.2020, her minor daughter was missing who was aged about 14 years. On receiving the said complaint, a missing report was lodged and on the basis of suspicion that the victim was lured and taken away by one Alok Toppo, F.I.R was lodged against the accused at Chowki- Rampur, Police Satation Kotwali, District- Korba (C.G.) and the investigation were taken up. 4. During the investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/3) was got prepared. Victim 3 / 10 CRA No. 327 of 2025 got medically examined. Accused was apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted accordingly. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 03/02/2025 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the statement of the victim is filled with contradictions and omissions, thus not worthy of being given credence. He further submits that the doctor has also not given any definite opinion about carnal intercourse. He further submits that conviction cannot be based on guesswork. He submits that victim is a child witness, thus, not to be believed in the absence of corroboration and prosecution story is filled with doubts, benefit whereof should be extended to the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the 4 / 10 CRA No. 327 of 2025 present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that the medical report is not supported the version of the prosecution and without there being any evidence with regard to the age of the Victim, the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that injury on the private part of the victim stands proved by the medical report. He would also submit that age of the victim being under 18 years, which is otherwise remains unchallenged during entire cross- examination, stands proved. He would further submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is just and proper and warrant no interference of this court. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 10. The first question for consideration would be that whether the victim was minor on the date of incident or not. 11. PW/1 – mother of the victim has stated in her statement that on the date of incident, her daughter was aged about 14 years old. Further she stated that her date of birth is 14/07/2006. The Dakhil Kharij Register was seized as Ex.P/14C also shows that the date of birth of the victim is 14/07/2006 which is duly proved and certified by Somnath Lahidi who 5 / 10 CRA No. 327 of 2025 was posted in the Nirmala Higher Secondary School, Kosabadi, Korba. Ex.C/1 i.e. the birth certificate of the victim issued by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of Chhattisgarh wherein the date of birth of the victim also indicated as 14/07/2006. 12. Therefore, for want of challenge and proved materials available on record, we do not have any hesitation in holding that the victim on the date of incident being below the age of 18 years, is 'child' within the meaning of section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. 13. The next question for consideration would come, whether the appellant committed such heinous act with the Victim or not? 14. The victim was examined as PW/2. She stated in her statement that the accused called her on the mobile phone of her father and asked her to meet him. Thereafter, she went to meet him on the road. The accused said that they will go for a walk from there. The accused took her away on his motorcycle towards the Jhagarha Forest where he committed forceful sexual intercourse and rape upon her. PW/3 – Uncle of the victim also stated in his statement that upon enquiring from the victim, she stated that the accused had made physical relationship with her twice. 15. If the testimony of the victim is trustworthy and totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the victim does not have a strong motive to falsely implicate the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her/his evidence. 6 / 10 CRA No. 327 of 2025 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 7 / 10 CRA No. 327 of 2025 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, 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 8 / 10 CRA No. 327 of 2025 offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 19. Dr. Veena Agrawal (PW/05) who has been posted as Medical Officer in the District Hospital, Korba conducted the medical examination of the victim and prepared medical report (Ex.P/10) according to which, she stated in her deposition that on external examination I found that the victim was of normal height and was developing secondary sexual characteristics. She had a total of 28 teeth in her mouth. No injury marks were found anywhere on his body. She further stated that on internal examination, I found that the victim's hymen membrane had many tear marks. The entry of two fingers into the victim's vagina was accompanied by mild pain. Her vaginal discharge was mixed with blood. On asking the victim, she told that she had been menstruating since 05 days ago. According to the doctor, she stated in affirmation that sexual intercourse was done with the victim. With regard to the time and duration of sexual intercourse, she said that the incident could have happened within 24 hours. 20. From bare perusal of the FSL report Ex-P24, it is clear that the vaginal slide and the under wear of the victim sent for the examination vide article A & B and under wear, pubic hair and slide of the accused sent vide article C, D1 & D2. On proper examination of the articles, the FSL gave its report finding that sperm was found on the articles B, C & D2. Likewise, the medical report EXP-10 submitted by PW-5, it is evident from the affirmative opinion of the doctor that recent sexual intercourse has been done with the victim. 9 / 10 CRA No. 327 of 2025 21. Hence, from the statements of doctor and the medical report, it stands established on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused was able to perform sexual intercourse. His report Ex.P/10 proves commission of carnal intercourse with the victim. Victim/PW-2 has categorically assigned role to the accused in commission of said offence against her. Age of the victim has been determined to be less than 18 years. Therefore, having aforesaid materials on record, compels us to hold that prosecution has proved on record beyond reasonable doubt, that on the date of incident, the accused committed carnal intercourse with the victim. 22. As far as the act of abduction regarding the offence under Sections 363 & 366 is concerned, the victim stated in her statement that calling upon the accused she only went to meet him on the road from where the accused forcefully made the victim to ride back side of his bike and took her towards the Jhagarha Forest and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. 23. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentenced as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 24. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail sentence 10 / 10 CRA No. 327 of 2025 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. 25. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice $. Bhilwar/ Jyoti