Chattisgarh High Court
Vishwanath Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:21095-DB
AFR
Digitally
signed by
BABLU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.05.06
18:50:17
+0530
CRA No. 1814 of 2018
Vishwanath Soni S/o Ram Dayal Prasad Soni Aged About 55 Years R/o
Mayapur, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja
(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr.Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate
General
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ
6/5/2026
1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 24.11.2018 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surguja (Ambikapur) in Special Sessions
Case (POCSO) No.05/2016, whereby the appellant has been
convicted for offence under Sections 377 of the Indian Penal
2
Code (hereinafter called as “IPC“) and Sections 5(l)/6, 5(m)/6 &
5(n)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (hereinafter called as “POCSO Act“) and sentenced to
undergo RI for ten years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month under Section
377 of the IPC, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in
default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month
under Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act, imprisonment for life and
fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI
for one month under Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act and
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
fine to further undergo SI for one month under Section 5(n)/6 of
the POCSO Act.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 13.01.2014, almost two
years before the information date 17.12.2015, the victim (PW-9)
was taken to his house in Khairbar by her stepfather/accused at
about 11.00 A.M. by promising her to do some work for him. After
taking her inside the house, he opened his pant and forcibly put
his urine into her mouth and made her suck it. After tying her
mouth with a cloth, he removed her underwear and started putting
his urine into her urinary tract, which caused excessive bleeding
and pain. Thereafter, the accused, by threatening the victim, took
her to a secluded place and raped her. Then, after a few days, on
09.12.2015, Manish Kushwaha (PW-6) of Child Line came to the
school of the victim (PW-9) and told the victim and other children
3
that if anyone troubles them or does anything wrong to them, then
tell him, they help everyone, then the victim (PW-9) told her friend
Kalika Nagesia (PW-8) about the incident and gave it in writing to
Nishi Madam. Thereafter, on 15.12.2015 at around 8.00 P.M., the
accused / appellant took the victim to his house in Mayapur and
was doing wrong things with her. At the same time, her brother
Krishna Soni (PW-3) saw this and told Smt.Lalita Soni (PW-2)
about the incident. Then the victim (PW-9) also told her mother
Smt.Lalita Soni (PW-2) about the incident. When the mother of the
victim (PW-9), Smt.Lalita Soni (PW-2) questioned the accused, he
started threatening to kill her, due to which they did not report the
matter. But Manish Kushwaha (PW-6) of Child Line had come to
the school of the victim (PW-9) along with other people, to whom
the victim (PW-9) told about the incident and went to Ambikapur
police station along with her mother Smt.Lalita Soni (PW-2) and
reported the matter.
3. On 17.12.2015, when the victim lodged a report against the
accused / appellant at Ambikapur Police Station, Assistant Sub-
Inspector Smt.Pushpa Tirkey (PW-10) registered First Information
Report (Ex.P-16) and recorded the statement of the victim as per
her instructions. Thereafter, she sent a written complaint (Ex.P-19)
to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambikapur, seeking permission
for medical examination of the victim. She also sent a written
complaint (Ex.P-1A) to the lady doctor, District Hospital for
medical examination. On the production of lady constable Silbina
4
Kujur No.303, the sealed slide prepared by the doctor after
examining the victim in the presence of witnesses was seized as
per seizure memo (Ex.P-20).
4. SDOP Pupalesh Kumar (PW-12) during the investigation on
18.12.2015 on the instructions of the victim and witnesses
prepared the spot map as Exs.P-3 and Ex.P-4 respectively. The
statements of witnesses Smt. Lalita Soni (PW-2), Krishna Soni
(PW-3), Manish Kushwaha (PW-6), Kalika Nagesia (PW-8), Smt.
Mamta Pandey (PW-7), Jawarani, Rakhi Tiwari, Abha
Chandravesh Singh, Aasma Dwivedi, Nishi Singh and Meena
Sahu were recorded as per their statement. On 18.12.2015,
memo Ex.P-21A was sent to the Medical Officer, District Hospital,
Ambikapur for medical examination of the accused. For getting
the medical examination of the victim (PW-9) done, consent of her
and her mother was obtained vide Ex.P-2. The accused was
produced before the witnesses in the arrest sheet Ex.P-22.
According to Ex.P-22, he was arrested and information about the
arrest was given to his family as per Ex.P-22A. On 21.12.2015, on
sending memo Ex.P-11 to the Headmistress, Police Line School,
Ambikapur regarding production of dakhil kharij register, on the
production of Headmistress Smt. Mamta Pandey (PW-7), the
attested copy of dakhil kharij register was seized in front of
witnesses as per Ex.P-13C vide seizure memo Ex.P-12. For
preparing the site plan of the incident, memo Ex.P-9 was sent to
the Tehsildar, Ambikapur. For recording the statement of the victim
5
(PW-9) under Section 164 Cr.P.C., memo Ex.P-24 was sent to the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur.
5. On 04.01.2016, SDOP Pupalesh Kumar (PW-12) on the
production of Headmistress Smt. Mamta Pandey (PW-7) seized a
page of a register Ex.P-14 in front of witnesses as per seizure
memo Ex.P-23. On the production of the same by Manish
Kushwaha (PW-6) in front of witnesses, documents and work
details related to the awareness program of Child Line 1098 in the
school Article-A, document regarding grant of permission for open
forum program Article-A-2, details of proceedings of the program
conducted by Child Line on 09.12.2015 Article-A-3 and documents
related to the program conducted by Child Line on 17.12.2015
Article-A-4 and Article A-5 were seized as per seizure memo
Ex.P- 10. On 13.01.2016, memo Ex.P-25 was sent to the District
Hospital, Ambikapur through the Superintendent of Police,
Surguja regarding the medical treatment of the victim. For getting
the seized property chemically tested, draft Ex.P-26 was sent to
Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur through
Superintendent of Police, Surguja and receipt Ex.P-26 was
obtained. The FSL report is Ex.P. 27. Thereafter, after completing
the investigation in the case, a charge sheet was presented
before the Central Filing Section, District and Sessions Court,
Ambikapur, from where the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.),
Surguja (Ambikapur) received the case on transfer for trial.
6
6. The charges were framed against the accused / appellant by the
learned Special Judge under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 376(2)(f),
376(2)(i), 323, 506B of the IPC and Sections 5(l) read with Section
6, 5(m) read with Section 6 and 5(n) read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, and were read and explained to him, he denied the
charges and claimed trial.
7. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the
prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 27
documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of
CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material
appearing against him. In his defence, the accused pleaded
innocence and that he had been falsely implicated. In his defence,
the defence witness, Smt.Chandraprabha Ambasht (DW-1), was
examined.
8. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial
Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in
para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment passed by learned Trial Court is wholly contrary to the
facts, law, and circumstances of the present case and, therefore,
is liable to be set aside. The findings recorded by the Trial Court
are not only erroneous but also suffer from serious infirmities, as
the same have been arrived at without proper appreciation of the
evidence available on record. It is further submitted that learned
7
trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has utterly
failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable
doubt. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
burden lies heavily upon the prosecution to establish its case with
cogent and reliable evidence. In the present case, the evidence
led by the prosecution falls far short of this standard.
10. Learned counsel submits that there was hardly any reliable and
trustworthy evidence on record to warrant the conviction of the
appellant under the relevant provisions of the IPC. Learned Trial
Court, however, proceeded to convict the appellant without there
being sufficient legal evidence, thereby rendering the conviction
unsustainable in law. It is also contended that the prosecution has
failed to establish the guilt of the appellant in a consistent and
convincing manner. The case of the prosecution suffers from
inherent contradictions, inconsistencies, and improbabilities,
which have not been properly appreciated by learned trial Court.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the statement of the victim
suffers from material contradictions and infirmities, which go to the
root of the matter. Such inconsistencies materially affect the
credibility of the witness, and in absence of corroboration, the
same ought not to have been relied upon for recording conviction.
It is also submitted that the victim being a child witness, her
testimony required careful scrutiny and cautious evaluation.
Learned Trial Court failed to adopt the settled principles governing
8
appreciation of evidence of a child witness. In such
circumstances, where the testimony is not wholly reliable and is
riddled with inconsistencies, the appellant was entitled to the
benefit of doubt, which has been wrongly denied. Learned counsel
further submits that there is nothing on record except mere
suspicion to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. The
medical evidence, including the testimony of the prosecution
witness doctor, does not conclusively support the prosecution
case and rather creates doubt regarding the allegations. The
medical report does not establish the occurrence of the alleged
act in the manner stated by the prosecution, thereby weakening
its case.
12. It is also contended that an important prosecution witness has not
supported the case of the prosecution, which further creates doubt
regarding the veracity of the allegations. On the other hand, the
defence has led evidence and produced documents which
probabilize the innocence of the appellant and cast serious doubt
on the prosecution story. These aspects have not been properly
considered by learned Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that
the entire case of the prosecution rests upon weak and unreliable
testimonial evidence, which is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out in the facts
and circumstances of the case, and therefore, the appellant is
entitled to acquittal. Learned counsel further submits that the
testimony of the victim does not inspire confidence and cannot be
9
said to be of “sterling quality” so as to form the sole basis of
conviction. It is a settled principle of law that while conviction can
be based on the sole testimony of the victim, the same must be of
unimpeachable character, wholly reliable, and free from material
contradictions. In the present case, the statement of the victim
suffers from significant inconsistencies, improvements, and
infirmities, which go to the root of the prosecution story. The
version put forth is neither consistent nor corroborated by the
surrounding circumstances and medical evidence. Therefore, in
absence of a credible and trustworthy testimony of sterling quality,
it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant solely
on such doubtful evidence, and the appellant is entitled to benefit
of doubt. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that
this Court may be pleased to allow the appeal, set aside the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, and
acquit the appellant of all charges.
13. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondent/State opposes the submissions
made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the
trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in
which no interference is called for by this Court.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their
rival submissions made herein-above and went through the
records with utmost circumspection.
10
15. The first question for consideration before this Court would be,
whether the Trial Court is rightly held that on the date of incident,
the victim was minor?
16. When a person is charged for offence punishable under the
POCSO Act, or for rape punishable in the Indian Penal Code, the
age of the victim is significant and essential ingredients to prove
such charge and the gravity of the offence gets changed when the
child is below 18 years, 12 years and more than 18 years. Section
2(d) of the POCSO Act defines the “child” which means any
person below the age of eighteen years.
17. In the present case, the prosecution has seized dakhil-kharij
register of the victim (Ex.P-13C), on which her date of birth is
mentioned as 4.7.2006 and since defence has not challenged the
documentary and oral evidence presented by the prosecution
regarding the victim’s date of birth being 4.7.2006, it is established
that at the time of the incident, the victim is a minor girl below 18
years of age.
18. The next question for consideration before us is whether the
appellant has committed rape on minor victim ?
19. Rape has been defined in Section 375 of the IPC as follows :
“375. Rape.– A man is said to commit “rape” if
he–
(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the
vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or
11makes her to do so with him or any other person;
or
(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of
the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the
urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do
so with him or any other person; or
(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman
so as to cause penetration into the vagina,
urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman
or makes her to do so with him or any other
person; or
(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus,
urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with
him or any other person,
under the circumstances falling under any of the
following seven descriptions:
First. Against her will.
Secondly. Without her consent.
Thirdly. With her consent, when her consent has
been obtained by putting her or any person in
whom she is interested, in fear of death or of
hurt.
Fourthly. With her consent, when the man knows
that he is not her husband and that her consent
is given because she believes that he is another
man to whom she is or believes herself to be
lawfully married.
Fifthly. With her consent when, at the time of
giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness
12of mind or intoxication or the administration by
him personally or through another of any
stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is
unable to understand the nature and
consequences of that to which she gives
consent.
Sixthly. With or without her consent, when she is
under eighteen years of age.
Seventhly. When she is unable to communicate
consent.
Explanation 1. For the purposes of this section,
“vagina” shall also include labia majora.
Explanation 2. Consent means an unequivocal
voluntary agreement when the woman by words,
gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal
communication, communicates willingness to
participate in the specific sexual act:
Provided that a woman who does not
physically resist to the act of penetration shall not
by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as
consenting to the sexual activity.
Exception 1. A medical procedure or intervention
shall not constitute rape.
Exception 2. Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by
a man with his own wife, the wife not being under
fifteen years of age, is not rape.”
20. The victim has been examined as PW-9. In para 1 of her
deposition, the victim has stated that the incident occurred one
year and six months ago. At that time, she was first studying at
13
Khairbar School and then studying in Class 4 at Police Line
Ambikapur. After her father’s death, she lived with her mother and
brother at her grandmother’s house in village Nagoi. After a few
months, her mother, Lalita Soni, married the accused. After that,
they lived happily with the accused for 15 days. After this,
accused Vishwanath Soni started wrongdoing with her a little
further from the school located near Chandni Chowk. Wrongdoing
means the accused used to make her suck his panties after
removing it and used to kiss every part of her body and if she did
not do it then he used to beat her. When she used to say that she
will tell the above to her mother then the accused used to say that
he will either leave her mother or kill her. After that they used to do
the same thing everyday. In another house of the accused which
is built in Khairbar, the accused used to make her lie on top of him
and after removing her and his panties he used to put her in the
toilet place, this used to happen everyday and he used to beat her
and did not let her go out of the house so that she do not tell
anyone and he used to make her sweep, mop and wash utensils
everyday. Even when he used to send her to school, he used to
not let her meet anyone and had also instructed the madams to
not meet anyone. After the holidays, he had told them not to let
her go out, they will take her when they come.
21. In para 3 of her deposition, the victim has stated that when she
return from school, he would make him change her dress and
beat her severely. If she did not know how to read English, he
14
would beat her with a bamboo stick. When her mother and brother
rented a separate room, the accused would visit her there too.
Even there, when her mother went to work, he would make her
suck his penis. She told her mother about this at night, and she
said she would tell him when he returned. After that, her mother
remained silent when he arrived. For for two or three days, she
told her, but she did nothing. After that, the accused called them
from their rented house and kept her, her mother, and her brother
in the house he had built in Khairbar. He would not let them go out
there, and he would do the same thing there. Then, from Khairbar,
they returned to the accused’s house in Chandni Chowk,
Mayapur. From there, she would go to Police Line School for
studies. Even there, the accused would make her remove her
underwear and suck it.
22. In para 4 of her deposition, the victim stated that she used to go to
school for a long time. After that, Manish from Child Line came to
the school and said, “Do not be afraid to tell him if any of the
children are facing any problems. If anyone under 18 is out
working, or if anyone in the family is doing something
inappropriate with someone, tell him.” He also told him to call
1098 and they would come pick her up. After two or three days of
school, Manish Kushwaha Sir came to the middle school and left
immediately, so she could not tell him anything. When he came to
the Police Line School for a high school program, he was
accompanied by a sister named Kusum. Gayatri Didi, who works
15
as a cook at the school, took her to that sister about the incident.
After that, she told her about the incident.
23. In para 12 of cross-examination, the victim has deposed that
when she lived in Mayapur house, she was a fourth-grade student
at the Police Lines School. Her school hours were from 7:30 A.M.
to 3:00 P.M. This was in 2015. After fourth-grade, she spent half
her schooling at her home in the Police Lines and then the rest of
her studies at the Girls’ home. She has been living there since
December, 2015. It might have been 16th or 17th. The accused
lastly doing wrong things with her on 15th December and at his
home and she told her mother. On that date, the accused
removed his underwear and suck it and he did not do anything
else that day. In para 15 of her cross-examination, the victim has
denied that she did not listen to her mother and brother and got a
false report written in the police station under the influence of the
Child Line people.
24. The victim (PW-9) in her 164 CrPC statement (Ex.P-7) has stated
that father Vishwanath Soni used to take her to his other house on
the pretext of work and would make her suck his penis and do it in
and out. On asking the victim the meaning of in and out, the victim
said that he would put his penis in and out from the place where
she used to urinate. Her father used to do this in the new house
as well and at the place where she live. Her father has been doing
this with her for the last two years. Whenever her father saw her,
16
he would keep kissing her. Her father used to say that it would be
more fun when she grow up. Her father used to say that if she tell
anyone then he will kill her. In para 4 of her statement, she stated
that her father used to insert his urinator and pass it through, she
used to feel a lot of pain and when she tried to shout, he used to
tie her mouth with a cloth and asked her whether she felt good or
not. When she used to say that it did not feel good, he used to
beat her with a stick. He used to tell her that he would not leave
her until milk type discharge occurs. He used to tell her to grow up
a bit. Whenever she bled, he would wipe it with a wet cloth and
throw it away. He used to hold her breasts the whole day. When
the victim was asked the meaning of milk, the victim placed her
hand on her chest and pointed.
25. Manish Kushwaha (PW-6) has stated in para 1 of his deposition
that while he was posted at Child Line, whenever she received
information through Child Line phone or other means about an
orphan, victim, or missing child, he would present them before the
Child Welfare Committee. In 2015, he conducted an awareness
program at the same school where the victim studied, the Primary
School Police Line. Subsequently, on 17.12.2015, he was
conducting an open-air program next to the victim’s school.
During that program, the school cook informed him that the victim
wanted to meet him. That day, he was accompanied by Balrampur
Child Line staff member Jawarani, whom he had sent to speak to
the victim. When Jawarani returned after meeting the victim, she
17
told him that the victim had told her that she was being raped by
her stepfather for the last one year and she did not want to go
home. In para 4 of her cross-examination, he admitted that he did
not provide any written information to Meera Shukla regarding the
above incident. The witness voluntarily stated that he was
informed verbally. He does not know how many people work at
my organization. The witness voluntarily stated that he is aware of
the number of people working at Child Line. He further admitted
that on 9.12.2015, their organization organized a program at the
Government Primary School, Police Lines. He also admitted that
the victim also studied at the school on that date. He admitted that
the victim did not tell him anything about the incident, nor did she
meet him. He does not know whether the victim was present on
that date. On 9.12.2015, he informed the children at Police Lines
School that if any nomadic child, orphan, or child who is a victim
of exploitation is in trouble, they can inform their organization’s
toll-free number or directly. He also admitted that after the
completion of the programme on 9.12.2015, their organisation had
written the programme’s agenda and it also contained details of
the number of children present and the topics they were told
about.
26. In the Indian society refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of
sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding
insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-
permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to
18
admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had
ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being
ostracized by the society and when in the face of these factors the
crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that the charge
is genuine rather than fabricated. Just as a witness who has
sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to be self-
inflicted, is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to
exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex offence
is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration
notwithstanding. A woman or a girl who is raped is not an
accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in
a rape case. The observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Rameshwar
v. The State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54) were:
“The rule, which according to the cases has hardened
into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential
before there can be a conviction but that the necessity
of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except
where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with
it, must be present to the mind of the judge…”.
27. A victim of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice.
She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere
says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is
corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a
competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must
receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of
physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must
19
attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an
injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is
that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with
the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the
charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels
satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the victim. There is no
rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act‘) similar to illustration (b) to Section
114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason
the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of
the victim it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to
her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an
accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to
the testimony of the victim must necessarily depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. But if a victim is an adult and of
full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her
evidence unless the same is own to be infirm and not trustworthy.
If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the
case discloses that the victim does not have a strong motive to
falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily
have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
28. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjit Hazarika v. State of
Assam, AIR 1998 SC 635 has held that the evidence of a victim
of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an
injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. It must not
20
be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault
is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another
person’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her
evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she
were an accomplice.
29. 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. 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
21used, 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.”
30. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nawabuddin v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2022) 5 SCC 419 has held as under:-
“17. 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
22be 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.
18. Children are precious human resources of our
country; they are the country’s future. The hope of
tomorrow 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.
19. As observed and held by this Court in 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 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
23protected 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.”
31. On a careful and holistic appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, this Court finds no merit in the present criminal appeal.
The testimony of the victim (PW-9), when read in conjunction with
her statement under Section 164 CrPC, reveals a consistent,
cogent, and natural account of the incidents. Her deposition
clearly establishes a continuous course of sexual abuse
perpetrated by the accused, marked by threats, coercion, and
physical violence. Despite a lengthy and searching cross-
examination, no material contradiction or infirmity has been
elicited which would shake the core of her version.
32. The victim’s statements remain substantially consistent from the
earliest point of disclosure to her deposition before the Court. The
minor variations, if any, are trivial and do not affect the substratum
of the prosecution case. Her conduct in initially withholding
disclosure due to fear and subsequently revealing the abuse upon
24
gaining confidence through the intervention of Child Line
personnel is both natural and in consonance with the behavioral
pattern of child victims of sexual offences.
33. The evidence of Manish Kushwaha (PW-6) further lends
assurance to the prosecution case by establishing the
circumstances under which the victim first disclosed the abuse.
There is nothing on record to suggest any motive on the part of
the victim to falsely implicate the accused, who was in a position
of trust and authority as her stepfather.
34. In light of the settled legal principles, the testimony of a victim of
sexual assault, particularly a child, stands on a higher pedestal
and does not require corroboration as a matter of law, provided it
inspires confidence. In the present case, the victim’s evidence
qualifies the test of a “sterling witness”. It is trustworthy,
consistent, and withstands rigorous scrutiny. The surrounding
circumstances and supporting evidence lend sufficient assurance
to her version.
35. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court
is satisfied that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused / appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The findings
recorded by the Trial Court are well-reasoned and based on
proper appreciation of evidence, warranting no interference.
36. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the
prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all
25
reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and
sentence as awarded by the Special Judge to the appellant is
hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
37. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties
discharged. He shall surrender within four weeks from today
before the concerned trial Court for serving remaining sentence
as awarded by the Trial Court, failing which he shall be taken into
custody by the Trial Court and sent to jail.
38. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along
with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned
forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send
a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail
where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence 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, if so advised, with the
assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
26
HEAD-NOTE
The testimony of the minor victim, if found cogent, consistent, and
trustworthy, is sufficient to form the basis of conviction without the need
for independent corroboration. Where the evidence withstands
cross-examination and inspires confidence, it must be accorded full
evidentiary value.
