Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 CRA No. 654 of 2016 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.22 10:42:16 +0530 2025:CGHC:47473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 654 of 2016 Subodh Tirki S/o Late Athnash Tirki Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Madhguri Aamatoli, Police Station Kusmi, Revenue And Civil District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Akshar The School, Sanjay Nagar, Police Station Jai Nagar, Revenue And Civil District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jainagar, Revenue And Civil District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant For Respondent/State : Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General
Legal Reasoning
“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 8 CRA No. 654 of 2016 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 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 9 CRA No. 654 of 2016 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 recise, 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. In view of the well-established legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and after a thorough examination of the evidence on record, it is clear that the appellant, being the teacher of the school where the victim was a student residing in the school hostel, committed the alleged unnatural act on the victim. The statement of the victim (PW-1) clearly discloses the incident, which is further corroborated by the testimony of PW-4, who not only witnessed the victim narrate the incident but also confirmed the victim’s account. The timely reporting of the matter by the victim to the school Principal and his father (PW-2), followed by the lodging of the FIR, further strengthens the credibility of the prosecution case. Consequently, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conviction of the appellant. Hence the trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire facts of the case and convicted the accused under Section 377 r/w Section 511 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 10 CRA No. 654 of 2016 23. In this case, the accused has also been charged under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. It has already been concluded that the victim was below the 18 years of age on the date of the incident and it has also been concluded that on the date of incident, the accused attempted to commit sexual assault on the victim by voluntarily causing carnal pleasure against the order of nature. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt the conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 24. After considering the entire evidence available on record as above, 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 sentenced as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 25. The accused is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining period of sentence. 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. 26. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar/Shoaib
Arguments
Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 16/09/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 73/2015 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur, C.G., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 CRA No. 654 of 2016 Conviction Sentence U/s 377 r/w Section 511 of IPC/ U/s 8 of the POCSO Act R.I. for three year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/victim (PW-1), a 7th class student at Akshar School studied at hostel. On 27/06/2015, he had dinner at 9:30 p.m. and went to sleep in his bed. At 11:30 P.M., he was awakened by sound of a boy sleeping with him. He saw that his school teacher i.e. the appellant herein, was lying in his bed. The accused unzipped his pants, took out his private part and held it in his right hand, make him masturbating. After a while, the accused attempted to insert his private part into the victim's mouth. He pushed him away then the accused left. The victim's friend (PW-4) saw the accused leaving. On 29/06/2015, the victim informed her father and uncle about the incident and lodged a report at the Jaynagar Police Station. Based on this report, Jaynagar Police Station registered an FIR bearing Crime No.110/15 against the accused and initiated the investigation. During the investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/2) was prepared. The Accused was apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted accordingly. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 3. During the investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/2) was got prepared. The 3 CRA No. 654 of 2016 Accused was apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted accordingly. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 18/03/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the statement of the victim is filled with contradictions and omissions, thus not worthy of being given credence. He further submits that conviction cannot be based on conjunction and surmises. He submits that victim is a child witness, thus, not to be believed in the absence of corroboration and prosecution story is filled with doubts, and benefit should be extended to the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt 4 CRA No. 654 of 2016 and without there being any cogent evidence, the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is just and proper and warrants no interference of this court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 9. The first question for consideration would be that whether the victim was minor on the date of incident or not. 10. In relation to the above question, it is important to consider the testimony of the victim (PW-1), Chandrabhan (PW-2), and Sub-Inspector Sunil Tiwari (PW-5). 11. The victim has stated in his evidence that his present age is to be 13 years and his year of birth to be 2002, and Chandrabhan Gupta PW-2, father of victim has stated the date of birth of the victim is 01.09.2002. Thus, on the basis of the said date of birth, at the time of incident, the age of victim was less than 18 years. 12. Sub-Inspector Sunil Tiwari PW-5 has stated in his evidence that the victim's birth certificate and school progress report, Article A-1 (issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary of the office of Gram Panchayat Padauli) 5 CRA No. 654 of 2016 and A-2 respectively, have been attached to the case and from the observation of the victim's birth certificate and school progress report, Article A-1 and A-2, attached to the record, in the birth certificate Article A-1, the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 01.09.2002 and from the observation of the progress report Article A-2, the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 01.09.2002. 13. The above document has not been disputed at any stage during cross- examination. Hence, it is proved that on the date of incident i.e. 27.06.2015, the age of the victim was approximately 12 years 09 months 26 days, which is less than 18 years. 14. The next question for consideration would come, whether the appellant committed such offence punishable under Section 377 of the IPC & Section 8 of POCSO Act. 15. The victim (PW-1) stated in his evidence that he knew the accused, Subodh Tirki. The incident occurred in the month of June, 2015. He was a 7th Class student living in the hostel of Akshar School in Sanjaynagar. On 27/06/2015, at around 10:00 p.m., after dinner, he went to his hostel room to sleep. After some time, the accused, Subodh Tirki, teacher of the school came to his bed and, holding his private part in his hand, began moving it up and down, attempting to insert it into his mouth. Thereafter, the victim pushed him away. His friend PW-4 witnessed the incident. In the morning, he told the hostel warden about the incident. The warden said she would speak to the principal. The victim informed the Principal about the incident and also informed his father and uncle about the 6 CRA No. 654 of 2016 incident over the phone. When they came, he reported the incident to the police station and on the basis of information, FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the appellant. In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted the fact that he usually watch and play cricket and knows some of the cricketers by name, he stated that he also knows the cricketer Pollard, however, he negated the fact that he used to tease the accused by calling him Pollard. He also negated the fact that he does not know whether his class mates used to tease the accused by calling him Pollard. 16. PW-2, father of victim stated that he knew the accused, Subodh Tirki. The victim is his son and was a student of 7th standard studied at Akshar School hostel in Sanjaynagar. On 29/06/2015, his son informed him that accused Subodh Tirki had misbehaved with him. The next day, he and his brother went to Akshar School. Thereafter, his son stated that on the date of the incident, he had gone to sleep after taking dinner. Around midnight, accused Subodh Tirki came on his bed and hold his private part and attempted to put it in his mouth. The victim then pushed him away. They also met with the school Principal and director regarding the incident and both of them told him that they would take action against the accused. Thereafter, they went to the police station and reported the incident. 17. PW-4, friend of the victim, has stated in his evidence that he knows the accused Subodh Tirki. He also knows the victim, who studied in the hostel of Akshar School and the accused herein was English teacher in that school. On the date of incident, he was sleeping in the hostel at 7 CRA No. 654 of 2016 night. He suddenly woke up. Some boy in the hostel had vomited. The accused was checking him. After that, the accused went away from there. The victim told him that the accused had come at night and was putting his private part in his mouth. He punched him once, then the accused was not able to put his private part in his mouth. 18. If the testimony of the victim is trustworthy and totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the victim does not have a strong motive to falsely implicate the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting his evidence. 19. It has also become almost settled position of law that conviction can be based on the solitary statement of victim, provided same inspires confidence of the court. 20. In cases under the POCSO Act, a ‘sterling’ witness refers to a witness whose testimony is of high quality on caliber to the extent that the Court can accept their version of events without requiring additional corroboration. The Supreme Court in ‘n’ numbers of cases, has observed that the testimony of a victim can be sufficient for conviction, if it is trustworthy and of sterling quality. 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deenu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:-