The Chhattisgarh High Court in CRA No. 1467 of 2021, delivered on January 16, 2025, upheld the conviction of Ajeet Singh Porte for the abduction and sexual assault of a 9-year-old minor. The court ruled that the victim’s testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was sufficient for conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, while modifying the life imprisonment sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The judgment was pronounced by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni represented the appellant, while Mr. Sakib Ahmad, Panel Lawyer, appeared for the State.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred on May 1, 2020, when the victim, a 9-year-old girl, was playing near a primary school in her village in Raigarh district. The appellant, dressed in a khaki uniform resembling police attire, approached the victim and forcibly abducted her on a motorcycle under the pretense of being a policeman.
The victim was taken to an isolated field, where the accused sexually assaulted her. He was apprehended later that day by police officers while transporting the crying victim on his motorcycle.
The victim’s father lodged a written complaint, and the police registered an FIR under Crime No. 164 of 2020 at the Tamnar Police Station. Following investigations, the appellant was charged under Sections 419 (Impersonation), 363 (Kidnapping), 365 (Wrongful Confinement) of the IPC, and Section 6 (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault) of the POCSO Act.
On August 28, 2021, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment, which was challenged in this appeal.
Legal Issues
1. Credibility of Victim’s Testimony:
The primary issue was whether the minor victim’s testimony alone, with supporting evidence, was sufficient for conviction.
2. Age of the Victim:
Whether the victim’s age, verified by her birth certificate, justified charges under aggravated sections of the POCSO Act.
3. Sufficiency of Corroborative Evidence:
The court examined whether the corroborative evidence, including witness testimonies and police action, validated the victim’s account.
4. Appropriateness of the Sentence:
Whether the imposition of life imprisonment was proportionate to the crime.
Observations of the Court
The High Court, after carefully reviewing the evidence, made the following observations:
1. Victim’s Testimony:
The court noted that the victim’s testimony was consistent and credible, satisfying the requirements of reliability. Referring to established legal principles, the court stated:
“Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence and is free from material contradictions.”
2. Age of the Victim:
The victim’s age was confirmed through her birth certificate, which showed her date of birth as October 25, 2010, making her 9 years old at the time of the offense.
3. Medical Evidence:
The medical examination did not show signs of physical injury, but the court emphasized that physical injuries are not mandatory to establish sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
4. Corroborative Evidence:
The victim’s testimony was corroborated by the immediate apprehension of the accused with the victim by the police, as well as statements from police officers and other witnesses.
5. Identification of the Accused:
The court found that the victim identified the appellant during her deposition and that no alternative narrative was plausible.
Court’s Decision
The High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 419, 363, 365 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, it reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, stating that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed.
The court retained the fine imposed by the trial court and directed compliance with its order by the relevant authorities, including the jail superintendent and trial court.
