1 2026:CGHC:18649-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2317 of 2025 Jogya Prasad Jaiswal S/o Trilochan Jaiswal Aged About 26 Years R/o Chimarkel P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Kumar Janardan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 23.04.2026 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Additional District & Upper Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO) Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 28/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences as under: MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.04.25 11:23:13 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of the IPC. R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 02 months. Under Section 366 of the IPC. R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 02 months. Under Section 6 of POCSO Act R.I. for 20 years with fine amount of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 03 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.02.2021, the mother of the victim (P.W.-01) lodged a written report alleging that the accused, who happens to be her son-in-law, had enticed and taken away her minor daughter, aged about 15 years, on 12.02.2021. Acting upon the said written complaint (Ex.P.-01), a First Information Report was registered by Inspector Lekh Ram Thakur (P.W.-12) at Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide Crime No. 83/2021 (Ex.P.-02), and investigation was set in motion. 3. During the course of investigation, steps were undertaken to ascertain the age of the victim. A notice (Ex.P.-23) was issued to the Headmaster of the concerned school seeking relevant records. The scholar/mutation register (Ex.P.-13) was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P.-12), and after obtaining a certified copy thereof (Ex.P.-13C), the original register was returned under a 3 surrender memo (Ex.P.-24). Further, on the basis of information provided during investigation, a spot map (Ex.P.-03) was prepared. Upon a requisition (Ex.P.-19) made to the Tehsildar, Patwari Nitesh Kumar (P.W.-09) prepared a panchnama of the place of occurrence along with a site map (Ex.P.-04). 4. The statement of the victim under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded by Female Head Constable Chanchal Banswar (P.W.-13). Subsequently, her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded on 24.07.2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Saraipali (Ex.P.-09), facilitated by Female Constable Subhashini Bhoi (P.W.-08), whose duty certificate is on record (Ex.P.-14). Statements of other prosecution witnesses were also recorded during investigation. Based on the statement of the victim, additional offences under Sections 366 and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were incorporated against the accused. 5. During investigation, the victim was recovered on 21.07.2021 from the custody of the accused at VKS Industries, Pasur, District Erode, State of Tamil Nadu, and a recovery panchnama was prepared (Ex.P.-06). Thereafter, upon obtaining consent of the victim and her mother (Ex.P.-05 & Ex.P.-07), the victim was medically examined by Dr. Varsha Satpathy (P.W.-11), Medical Officer, CHC Basna, vide report (Ex.P.-08). The victim was 4 escorted for medical examination by Constable Basanti Seth (P.W.-10). During such examination, relevant articles including undergarments and vaginal slides were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P.-15), and the same were sent for forensic examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur through Constable Roshan Lal Dhruv (P.W.-14). The FSL report received in this regard is exhibited as (Ex.P.-25). 6. During interrogation, the accused is stated to have made inculpatory statements admitting his involvement in the offence, including repeated sexual assault upon the victim after luring her away. He was subsequently arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P.-11), and intimation of arrest was furnished to his family members (Ex.P.-22). 7. The accused was also subjected to medical examination at CHC Basna, conducted by Dr. B.R. Malik (P.W.-15), and the medical report is exhibited as (Ex.P.-18). During the said examination, samples were preserved and sealed. The mobile phone of the accused was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P.-10) in the presence of witnesses, namely P.W.-04 and P.W.-06. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 5 8. Upon committal of the case, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(N), 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. 9. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-25). After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies, inasmuch as the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Section 164 Cr.P.C., and her deposition before the Court are not consistent with each other and contain significant improvements, thereby rendering her testimony unreliable. It is further argued that the issue of age of the victim has not been conclusively established, as despite medical opinion recommending radiological examination, the same was not conducted, creating 6 serious doubt regarding applicability of the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated and the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that the learned trial Court has erred in placing undue reliance upon the testimony of P.W.-01 (mother of the victim), whose evidence is interested, uncorroborated, and unreliable. Further, it is urged that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and all witnesses are interested witnesses, thereby weakening the prosecution case. The learned counsel emphasizes that there are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, which have not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. It is also pointed out that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, which creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story. Lastly, it is submitted that in view of the evidence on record, no offence as alleged is made out against the appellant, and the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in law, thus entitling the appellant to acquittal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is well-founded, legally sound, and based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, and therefore calls for no interference. It is contended that the victim 7 (P.W.-03), in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Ex.P.-09) as well as in her deposition before the Court, has clearly and consistently stated that the appellant had taken her away and subjected her to repeated non-consensual physical acts. Her testimony, it is urged, remains cogent and reliable on material particulars. The medical evidence, as proved by Dr. Varsha Satpathy (P.W.-11) vide report (Ex.P.-08), lends assurance to the prosecution case, wherein it has been opined that the hymen was not intact and findings were suggestive of prior sexual activity. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has been duly established through documentary evidence in the form of school records, wherein her date of birth is recorded as 07.07.2005, thereby establishing that she was a minor at the relevant time. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and proved 25 documents, and after a full-fledged trial, including examination and cross-examination of witnesses and recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned Special Court has rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant by judgment dated 16.07.2025. It is contended that the investigation has been conducted in accordance with law and the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly establishes the involvement of the appellant, which remains unshaken. Emphasis is also laid on the fact that the appellant, being related to the victim, misused the position of trust and subjected a minor child to unlawful acts. The 8 conviction is primarily based on the testimony of the victim, which has been found to be trustworthy and of sterling quality. It is thus submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the learned trial Court, upon detailed appreciation of evidence, has rightly concluded that the chain of incriminating circumstances is complete and points towards the guilt of the appellant. Considering the gravity of the offence committed against a minor, it is urged that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 13. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix deserves acceptance and whether the prosecution has established the case of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 14. It is pertinent to observe that the question whether conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault/rape is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in a catena of judgments and has held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if found reliable can be the sole ground for convicting the accused and that the creditworthy testimony of the victim in cases of such nature deserves acceptance. 9 15. The next issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the age of the victim on the date of commission of the offence concerned, was below 18 years of age. 16. Regarding the age of the victim, it is pertinent to note that for determination of age, the prosecution has relied upon documentary evidence falling within the ambit of clause (i) of sub- section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. As per the statutory scheme, preference is to be given to documentary proof such as school records in determining the age of a child. 17. To establish the age of the victim, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the admission and withdrawal (Dakhil Kharij) register (Ex.P.-13) and its attested copy (Ex.P.-13C), maintained by the school of the victim, wherein her date of birth is recorded as 07.07.2005. 18. The Investigating Officer (P.W.-01) has deposed that he issued notice (Ex.P.-23) to the concerned school for production of records and seized the admission register vide seizure memo (Ex.P.-12). After obtaining the attested copy (Ex.P.-13C), the original register was returned under proper acknowledgment (Ex.P.-24). The Headmaster (P.W.-07) has duly supported the seizure and has produced the original register before the Court. He has categorically stated that the entry relating to the victim appears at serial No. 1350 and records her date of birth as 10 07.07.2005. The seizure has also been corroborated by independent witness P.W.-05. 19. In cross-examination, the Headmaster clarified that the entries were made by his predecessor, however, he explained the procedure followed at the time of admission, wherein documents such as birth certificate or Aadhaar card are relied upon. The defence has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that the entry regarding date of birth is incorrect or fabricated. A mere suggestion that the witness did not personally make the entry is insufficient to discredit the document. The school register, having been maintained in the ordinary course of official duty, is admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, and carries a presumption of correctness unless effectively rebutted. 20. The oral evidence also lends support to the documentary proof. The victim (P.W.-02), in her deposition, has stated her date of birth as 07.07.2005. Her educational history, as reflected from the school records, is consistent with her stated age. The testimony of her mother (P.W.-01) further indicates that the victim was younger than her elder sibling by about 3-4 years and was below 18 years at the time of the incident. A cumulative reading of these statements reinforces the conclusion that the victim was a minor at the relevant time. 21. It is significant to note that the defence has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to rebut the documentary proof regarding age. 11 No contrary material, such as birth records maintained by local authorities or other contemporaneous documents, has been produced to cast doubt on the date of birth recorded in the school register. In absence of any substantive challenge, the entries in the school record remain reliable. 22. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the documentary and oral evidence on record, this Court finds that the date of birth of the victim is duly established as 07.07.2005. The date of the incident being 12.02.2021, the victim was aged approximately 15 years, 07 months, and 05 days, and thus was below 16 years of age at the relevant time. 23. Accordingly, it is held that the prosecution has successfully established that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident. 24. The next question for consideration is whether, on the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, on or about 12.02.2021, enticed or took away the minor victim from the lawful guardianship of her mother without her consent, and thereafter, during the period of her absence till her recovery on 21.07.2021, subjected her to repeated acts constituting offences punishable under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012? Appreciation of Evidence relating to abduction, recovery, and sexual assault 12 25. The Investigating Officer, Inspector Jitendra Kumar Vijaywar (P.W.-16), has deposed that upon registration of Crime No. 83/2021 at Police Station- Basna for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, he undertook investigation in accordance with law and, after completion thereof, submitted the final report before the jurisdictional Court. The witness has broadly narrated the steps taken during investigation, including collection of documentary evidence, recording of statements, recovery proceedings, and forwarding of material objects for forensic examination. 26. The victim (P.W.-02) has deposed that she was acquainted with the accused. The occurrence took place in February, 2021 when the accused called her to her sister’s house at Saradih. It is stated that the accused initially represented that they would go for a casual outing. When she expressed her intention to speak to her mother, the accused prevented her from doing so and thereafter took her away without her consent. She has further stated that she was taken to Tamil Nadu, where she was kept under the control of the accused. According to her deposition, she was compelled to accompany him to a place of work and during the period of stay, the accused subjected her to sexual assault repeatedly. She has further stated that she was made to work during the day and was sexually assaulted during the night hours. Whenever she expressed her desire to return home, the accused 13 threatened her with dire consequences and exercised control over her movements. She has also stated that her earnings were retained by the accused and she was not permitted to communicate freely with her family. The victim has categorically stated that she was under constant pressure, coercion, and fear, and was not in a position to leave the custody of the accused. 27. The victim has further admitted her signatures on the recovery panchnama (Ex.P.-06) and on the consent for medical examination (Ex.P.-07). She has also admitted her signature on her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.P.-09), thereby affirming that the said statement was made voluntarily before the Magistrate. 28. In her cross-examination, though suggestions were put to the effect that she had accompanied the accused voluntarily and that no coercion was involved, she denied the same. She reiterated that she was taken away against her will and subjected to exploitation. The defence version of consensual travel was specifically denied by her. 29. The mother of the victim (P.W.-01) has deposed that the victim is her daughter and that the accused had taken her away from lawful custody. She has stated that after the victim went missing, efforts were made to trace her and inquiries revealed that she was in Tamil Nadu along with the accused. She has further stated that upon receiving information, the police proceeded to Tamil Nadu 14 and the victim was recovered. She has denied the defence suggestion that the victim had left voluntarily for employment purposes. 30. The sister of the victim (P.W.-03) has stated that the accused, who is her husband, had taken the victim to Tamil Nadu. She has further deposed that the victim was residing with the accused and was subsequently traced and recovered with the assistance of police authorities. She has also stated that the victim was not living independently and was under the influence and control of the accused. In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the victim had accompanied the accused of her own free will. 31. The uncle of the victim (P.W.-04) has also supported the prosecution version and stated that the victim was taken away by the accused and was later recovered from Tamil Nadu. His testimony corroborates the fact of removal of the victim from lawful guardianship. 32. A cumulative reading of the testimonies of P.W.-01 (mother), P.W.- 03 (sister), and P.W.-04 (uncle) shows consistent and corroborative evidence that the victim was taken away by the accused without consent and was subsequently recovered from Tamil Nadu. Their statements remain substantially unshaken in cross-examination insofar as the factum of removal and recovery is concerned. 15 33. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P.-09) assumes significance, wherein she has clearly stated before the Magistrate that she was taken away without consent and subjected to repeated sexual exploitation during her stay with the accused. The said statement is consistent with her deposition before the Court and lends corroboration to the prosecution case. 34. The recovery of the victim from Tamil Nadu is also supported by the recovery panchnama (Ex.P.-06) and the testimony of the investigating officer and independent witnesses. The evidence on record demonstrates that the victim was traced and recovered from the company of the accused at a workplace in Tamil Nadu, thereby establishing her removal from the lawful custody of her guardian. 35. On a holistic appreciation of the evidence, it stands established that the victim was a minor at the relevant time and was taken away from the lawful custody of her parents without their consent. The prosecution evidence further establishes that she was transported to another State and kept there under circumstances indicating control, coercion, and absence of free will. 36. The consistent version of the victim, corroborated by her mother, sister, uncle, recovery witnesses, and documentary evidence, establishes that the accused not only removed her from lawful guardianship but also continued to exercise control over her movements during the relevant period. 16 37. Accordingly, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had, on the relevant date, abducted the minor victim from the lawful custody of her guardian without consent and transported her to another place, thereby attracting the ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Findings regarding sexual assault and evidentiary appreciation 38. The next aspect for consideration is whether the prosecution has established that the accused subjected the victim to repeated sexual assault/aggravated penetrative sexual assault during the period she remained in his custody from 12.02.2021 to 21.07.2021. 39. The victim (P.W.-02) has, in clear and categorical terms, deposed that after being taken to Tamil Nadu, she was kept with the accused under conditions of control and coercion. She has stated that during the day she was made to accompany the accused to a place of work, and at night she was subjected to sexual assault by him. She has further stated that such acts were not isolated, but continued repeatedly during the entire period of her stay. She has also deposed that whenever she expressed her desire to return to her parental home, the accused threatened her with dire consequences, thereby preventing her from escaping his control. 17 The testimony of the victim thus discloses a consistent narrative of continued exploitation, absence of consent, and domination by the accused. 40. The victim has further stated that she was not permitted to maintain contact with her family and was kept under constant fear. She has also stated that her earnings were taken away by the accused and she had no independent control over her movements or communication. These circumstances, as narrated by her, clearly indicate absence of voluntariness and existence of coercive control, thereby negating any possibility of consensual relationship. 41. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.P.-09) assumes evidentiary significance. In the said statement, she has reiterated that she was taken away without consent and was subjected to repeated sexual intercourse by the accused during the period she remained with him. The said statement is consistent with her deposition before the Court and there is no material contradiction which would create any doubt as to its reliability. 42. The testimony of P.W.-03 (sister of the victim) also supports the prosecution version. She has stated that the victim was taken to Tamil Nadu by the accused and was found living with him at a workplace. She has further deposed that upon receiving information, she along with police personnel proceeded to Tamil 18 Nadu and the victim was recovered from the company of the accused. Though she was subjected to cross-examination, her version regarding the victim being in the custody of the accused and her recovery remained substantially intact. 43. The testimony of P.W.-01 (mother of the victim) and P.W.-04 (uncle) also corroborates the fact that the victim was taken away by the accused and was subsequently traced in Tamil Nadu. Their evidence, though brief on the aspect of sexual assault, strengthens the foundational fact that the victim remained in the exclusive company of the accused during the relevant period. 44. The medical evidence of Dr. Varsha Satpathy (P.W.-11) further lends corroboration to the prosecution case. The medical examination (Ex.P.-08) indicates that the victim had a ruptured hymen with findings suggestive of prior sexual activity. The doctor has opined that there were no external injuries on the body. However, she has noted findings consistent with past sexual intercourse. Though the FSL report did not detect semen, the medical opinion clearly indicates previous penetration, which, when read in conjunction with the oral testimony of the victim, supports the prosecution case of repeated sexual activity over a prolonged period. 45. It is well settled that absence of semen or absence of fresh injuries is not, by itself, determinative of the issue in cases involving prolonged custody and repeated sexual intercourse, 19 particularly where the victim has remained under the control of the accused for a considerable period. In the present case, the prosecution version is of continuous cohabitation-like custody, and therefore, the medical findings cannot be read in isolation to discredit the otherwise consistent and cogent testimony of the victim. 46. The law is equally settled that conviction in cases of sexual offences can safely be based on the sole testimony of the victim, provided it inspires confidence and is of sterling quality. In the present case, the testimony of the victim is consistent, natural, and corroborated by her earlier statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recovery evidence, and medical findings. No material contradiction or omission has been brought on record which would discredit her version or render it unsafe for reliance. 47. The defence has suggested that the relationship was consensual. However, such a plea stands negated in view of the categorical assertion of the victim that she was taken away without consent, kept under coercion, and subjected to repeated sexual assault. The surrounding circumstances, including her age, manner of removal, continued custody, and threats alleged to have been extended to her, clearly rule out any voluntary participation. 48. The evidence of the victim is further strengthened by the recovery of her from the possession/companionship of the accused at Tamil Nadu, as established by the recovery panchnama (Ex.P.-06) and 20 supported by independent witnesses. The fact that she remained with the accused continuously during the relevant period is not in dispute. 49. In view of the cumulative assessment of oral and documentary evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused not only abducted the minor victim but also subjected her to repeated sexual assault during the period she remained in his custody. The testimony of the victim, duly corroborated by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances, inspires full confidence and does not suffer from any inherent improbability. 50. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of 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. 21 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, 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 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.” 22 51. In the matter of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 17 SCC 291, in paras 14 and 20, it is observed as under: “14. At the very outset, it has to be stated with authority that the Pocso Act is a gender legislation. This Act has been divided into various chapters and parts therein. Chapter II of the Act titled “Sexual Offences Against Children” is segregated into five parts. Part A of the said Chapter contains two sections, namely, Section 3 and Section 4. Section 3 defines the offence of “Penetrative Sexual Assault” whereas Section 4 lays down the punishment for the said offence. Likewise, Part B of the said Chapter titled “Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault and Punishment therefor” contains two sections, namely, Section 5 and Section 6. The various subsections of Section 5 copiously deal with various situations, circumstances and categories of persons where the offence of penetrative sexual assault would take the character of the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Section 5(k), in particular, while laying emphasis on the mental stability of a child stipulates that where an offender commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, by taking advantage of the child's mental or physical disability, it shall amount to an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.” “20. Speaking about the child, a three Judge Bench in M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N. (1996) 6 SCC 756 “1. … “child is the father of man”. To enable fathering of a valiant and vibrant man, the child must be groomed well in the formative years of his life. He must receive 23 education, acquire knowledge of man and materials and blossom in such an atmosphere that on reaching age, he is found to be a man with a mission, a man who matters so far as the society is concerned.” 52. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.144 OF 2022), decided on 8.2.2022 has held as under:- “10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects and to achieve what has been provided under Article 15 and 39 of the Constitution to protect children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, the POCSO Act, 2012 has been enacted. Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act. By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure. Children are precious human resources of our country; they are the country’s future. The hope of tomorrow 24 rests on them. But unfortunately, in our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position. There are different modes of her exploitation, including sexual assault and/or sexual abuse. In our view, exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and the society. Therefore, the children and more particularly the girl child deserve full protection and need greater care and protection whether in the urban or rural areas. As observed and held by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, children need special care and protection and, in such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. In the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, it is observed by this Court that a minor who is subjected to sexual abuse needs to be protected even more than a major victim because a major victim being an adult may still be able to withstand the social ostracization and mental harassment meted out by society, but a minor victim will find it difficult to do so. Most crimes against minor victims are not even reported as very often, the perpetrator of the crime is a member of the family of the victim or a close friend. Therefore, the child needs extra protection. Therefore, no leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law.” 53. When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident. Instead, the emphasis is on 25 allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version. In State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar (2004) 8 SCC 153 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:“ “21. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court on facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration, as understood in the context of an accomplice, would suffice.” 54. On these lines, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivasharanappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 observed as follows: “17. Thus, it is well settled in law that the court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record. Needless to say as a rule of prudence, the court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from 26 other reliable evidence placed on record. The principles that apply for placing reliance on the solitary statement of the witness, namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack of corroboration, apply to a child witness who is competent and whose version is reliable.” 55. The Supreme court in the matter of State of UP v. Sonu Kushwaha, (2023) 7 SCC 475 has held as under : “12. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6,on its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option but to impose the minimum sentence as done by the Trial Court. When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence. However, we find no such provision in the POCSO Act. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent may have moved ahead in life after undergoing the sentence as modified by the High Court, there is no question of showing any leniency to him. Apart from the fact that the law provides for a minimum sentence, the crime committed by the respondent is very gruesome which calls for very stringent punishment. The impact of the obnoxious act on the mind of the victim/child will be 27 lifelong. The impact is bound to adversely affect the healthy growth of the victim. There is no dispute that the age of the victim was less than twelve years at the time of the incident. Therefore, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court.” 56. Upon careful and holistic appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court finds that the testimony of the victim (P.W.-02) is consistent, coherent, and inspires confidence. She has, at all material stages, stated that the accused induced her to accompany him, removed her from the lawful custody of her mother without consent, and thereafter took her to Tamil Nadu, where she remained under his exclusive control. 57. The evidence of the victim clearly discloses that during the period of her stay with the accused, she was subjected to continuous coercion and was not permitted to return to her parental home despite her repeated requests. Her version regarding absence of free will and existence of coercive circumstances remains unshaken in cross-examination. 58. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.P.-09) is consistent with her deposition before the Court. In the said statement, she has categorically stated that she was taken away without consent and subjected to repeated sexual acts during the period of her custody 28 with the accused. The said statement, being voluntary and recorded before a Magistrate, lends strong corroboration to her testimony. 59. The testimonies of P.W.-01 (mother), P.W.-03 (sister), and P.W.-04 (uncle) collectively establish that the victim was removed from her lawful guardianship and was subsequently traced and recovered from Tamil Nadu in the company of the accused. Their evidence is consistent on material particulars and remains substantially uncontroverted. 60. The recovery of the victim from Tamil Nadu stands duly proved through the recovery panchnama (Ex.P.-06) and the testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W.-16) as well as independent witnesses. The evidence establishes that the victim was found in the company of the accused at the relevant place of recovery, thereby reinforcing the prosecution case regarding unlawful removal and continued custody. 61. The medical evidence of Dr. Varsha Satpathy (P.W.-11), as reflected in report (Ex.P.-08), indicates findings consistent with past sexual activity. Although no fresh injuries were noted and no semen was detected in the forensic report (Ex.P.-25), the medical opinion, when read in conjunction with the oral testimony of the victim and surrounding circumstances, supports the prosecution version of prior sexual intercourse during the period of alleged captivity. 29 62. The plea of consent taken by the defence does not appear to be sustainable in view of the clear and consistent testimony of the victim regarding inducement, removal from lawful guardianship, and subsequent coercive circumstances. Considering the age of the victim, such plea is further weakened and does not inspire acceptance. 63. This Court further finds that the prosecution has successfully established that the victim was a minor at the relevant time and was taken away without the consent of her lawful guardian. The continued custody of the accused over the victim at a place outside the State further strengthens the inference of abduction and unlawful restraint. 64. The testimony of the victim is of sterling quality and does not suffer from any material contradiction or inherent improbability. It stands duly corroborated by medical evidence, recovery evidence, and the statements of close relatives of the victim. 65. In view of the settled legal position that conviction in sexual offence cases can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. 66. In the result, 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 30 sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 67. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 68. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the jail term, 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. 69. 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/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet