The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed the appeal of a man convicted for kidnapping and raping a minor girl under the POCSO Act, reiterating that when a witness qualifies as a “sterling witness,” their testimony alone is sufficient to sustain conviction. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Ambikapur, against appellant Raju Yadav.
“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 or doubt as has been dealt with in the present case,” the High Court observed while relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint lodged on 30 June 2020 by the victim’s father, stating that his 14-year-old daughter went missing on the previous evening while on a walk with friends. He suspected Raju Yadav, a young man known to visit their village, had taken her.
The victim was later found and recounted that the accused had taken her to a forest area (Kachhar), kept her there overnight, and sexually assaulted her. An FIR under Section 363 IPC was registered and, following investigation, charges under IPC Sections 376(3), 376(2)(g), and Sections 3(a)/4(2) & 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act were framed.
Testimony and Evidence
The prosecution presented eight witnesses, including:
- Victim (PW-3): Gave a detailed and consistent account of being taken to the forest and raped by the appellant.
- Father (PW-1) and Grandmother (PW-2): Confirmed the victim’s disappearance and later statement.
- Investigating Officer (PW-6): Detailed procedural steps including medical and forensic examinations.
- Medical Experts (PW-7 & PW-8): Provided examination results of the victim and the accused.
Despite the absence of external injuries, medical records showed the hymen was torn, and an FSL report confirmed human sperm was present on the victim’s vaginal slide. The underwears of both the accused and victim, however, did not reveal semen stains.
Victim’s Age Confirmed Below 16
The Court evaluated the age of the victim based on her school records. The Dakhil Kharij register and testimony of the headmaster Ayodhya Prasad Jaiswal (PW-5) confirmed the date of birth as 03.01.2006. Even accepting the alternative date mentioned as 03.01.2007, the Court held that the victim was below 16 years at the time of the incident.
Legal Analysis
Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ashwani Kumar Saxena, State of M.P. v. Preetam, Shree Kant Shekar, Alakh Alok Srivastava, B.C. Deva v. State of Karnataka, and Sonu Kushwaha, the Court reiterated that:
- Conviction in rape cases can be based solely on the credible testimony of the prosecutrix.
- Minor inconsistencies do not render the testimony unreliable.
- Medical and forensic reports must be read together with oral evidence.
- No leniency is permissible in cases under the POCSO Act.
The Court also cited Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand and M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N. to reinforce the need for strong legal protection for child victims of sexual offences.
Final Judgment
After reviewing the evidence and judicial precedents, the High Court concluded:
“The victim was a minor below 16 years. The accused kidnapped her and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Her consistent and credible testimony, supported by documentary and medical evidence, leaves no room for doubt.”
The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision convicting the appellant under:
- Section 363 IPC
- Section 366 IPC
- Section 3(a) read with Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act
The appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed that the convict remain in jail to serve his sentence. He was informed of his right to appeal before the Supreme Court.
