The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction of 75-year-old Mukundrao Sarjare under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, reaffirming that a victim’s testimony in sexual offence cases does not need to be exact in every detail, as long as it is credible and consistent.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2022, filed by the appellant challenging his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (POCSO), Rajnandgaon in Special Criminal Case No. 28/2021. The trial court had convicted Sarjare under Section 342 (wrongful confinement) and Section 506 Part II (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of ₹2,000.
Case Background
According to the prosecution, on March 19, 2021, the victim’s father lodged a complaint at Police Station Chilhati, District Rajnandgaon, alleging that the accused had lured his 10-year-old daughter into his house, confined her, and sexually assaulted her. The police registered an FIR under Crime No. 13/2021 and charged the accused under Sections 342, 376AB, 506 IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
During the trial, the victim (PW-3) testified that the accused forcibly removed her clothes, gagged her mouth, and raped her. The prosecution presented 12 witnesses, including the victim’s father (PW-1), mother (PW-2), and aunt (PW-6), who partially witnessed the crime. The victim’s birth certificate and school records confirmed that she was below 12 years old at the time of the incident.
Court’s Observations
The High Court extensively discussed the reliability of a victim’s testimony in cases of sexual assault, citing Supreme Court precedents. The bench noted that:
“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 allowing the victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect.”
The court further stated that minor inconsistencies in a child’s testimony do not discredit the allegations, especially when supported by medical and documentary evidence. The medical report by Dr. Tejal Kurhade (PW-8) confirmed swelling and redness on the victim’s genitalia, corroborating the victim’s statement. Additionally, forensic evidence supported the prosecution’s case.
Defense Arguments and Rejection
The defense, represented by Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, argued that the prosecution failed to prove rape conclusively, citing inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and lack of conclusive medical evidence. The defense also challenged the victim’s age, contending that the prosecution failed to establish she was a minor.
However, the High Court dismissed these claims, affirming that the prosecution had provided ample evidence to establish the victim’s age and the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Panel Lawyer for the State, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, successfully countered the defense’s arguments, asserting that the victim’s testimony was credible, consistent, and sufficient for conviction.
Final Verdict
Upholding the trial court’s judgment, the High Court ruled that no leniency could be granted in cases of child sexual abuse. It reiterated that POCSO Act mandates stringent punishment to protect minors from sexual offences and that courts must take a victim-centric approach while evaluating evidence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to serve his life sentence. The court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is lodged, informing him of his right to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Precedents Cited
The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including:
- Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi (2012) – Affirming that a credible and consistent testimony of a victim is sufficient for conviction.
- Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand (2022) – Stating that leniency in POCSO cases cannot be granted.
- State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha (2023) – Reaffirming that POCSO imposes minimum mandatory sentences with no scope for judicial discretion in reducing punishment.
